Under review

Boxshot 5.2.3 beta feedback

Vitaly Ovchinnikov 10 months ago updated 9 months ago 12

Boxshot 5.2.3 beta is out with all the requested fixes for the new books. Some details are here: https://boxshot.com/2020/07/25/boxshot-5-2-3.html, please give it a try and leave some feedback below. Thank you :)

Love the new features, my only comment is using a percentage for the artwork wrapping level makes no sense.

When I create my cover in InDesign, the bleed for the artwork wrap is always a fixed dimension as opposed to a dimension. The printer will say for example, add 20 mm, not 10%. Also if receiving the cover with bleed from a designer for me to create the 3D image, again, I will be told the artwork has bled a fixed amount. 

Also, if I need to work it out, I can measure the distance in Acrobat. However, it’s never a percentage.

Any chance that this can be changed before release? 

here is a cover, the dimensions are front: 165mm×102mm, joint: 8.5mm and width: 27mm

normally, I wouldn't create the image with crop marks for boxshot, but I have here to show the issue.

spread test 2.pdfbug.boxshot5

Under review

Looks like the artwork is not uploaded, could you re-post it, please? If the problem is that the bleeds are visible, Boxshot does not read them and does not crop the artwork to the trim box for historical reasons.

Overall, I got your point regarding the wrapping level vs bleeds. There is currently a limitation for bleeds, as they cannot exceed the "block to cover" distance plus some allowance for the cover thickness and edge radius. So there is a specific range for the bleeds and the percentage looked more native.

It is not a problem to change percents to units, but it may take time to allow larger bleeds, or we may limit bleeds by the distance between the artwork on the outside of the cover and the paper block inside the book.

“we may limit bleeds by the distance between the artwork on the outside of the cover and the paper block inside the book”
this seems to be the correct approach in my eyes :-)

I have created 3 pdfs: https://we.tl/t-g1fPBxgWYE

The first is called spread cropped (good for client).pdf: If the user only has this, then there is no artwork to wrap in which case I understand the logic of using a percentage. The problem of course is that the client cannot see if the writing on the spine is too close to the top of the spine.

The second pdf is called spread with 5mm bleed (good for boxshot).pdf. In this PDF there are no crop marks. If Boxshot is able to detect the bleed from the trim, then there is no need for the “Artwork wrapping level” as it would wrap whatever there was. If there was 20mm of bleed, it would simply know that the distance to hard cover was say 3mm, the edge radius, 1mm and the cover thickness another 2mm, so if I have understood how the calculations work, it would only use the first 6mm of the 20mm of bleed. If the bleed was only 5mm as in the example sent to you, then there would be 1mm missing. I guess the Artwork wrapping level could be use to “fudge things” when it wasn’t absolutely required to be perfect.

The third pdf is the same but with crop marks in case that is useful to you.

Finally, I have understood the joint width to be a separate value from the front cover, is this the case

Here is a screenshot of my InDesign:


There are 5 InDesign pages.
❶ is the front

❷ is the joint 

❸ the spine

❹ joint again 

❺ back

Is this how Boxshot sees the joint? or is the joint part of the front? in other words, for me, the front is 102mm and the joint is 8.5mm, or should it be that the front is 110.5mm and from that the joint is 8.5mm?


I got your point regarding the bleeds processing, we'll see if it can be improved.

As for the joint, it is a part of the front/back covers.

I just want to add, that even using the 5% stretch with a version without bleed makes a really beautiful 3D render. I think the approximation is extremely convincing and certainly good enough for my clients. It’s just my OCD that wants it perfect, although I doubt anybody can tell the difference.

This is really very very good. Kudos!

The percentage slider was designed for the artwork without bleeds, so the question was basically "how much of the artwork at the edges you don't really need, so we can stretch it?" That's why there are percents there instead of centimetres. Your point is good and so far it looks pretty simple to change this to "how much centimetres of the artwork you don't really need?". The rest would be the same and the artwork will anyway be stretched if the bleeds don't match the pages-cover gap. We'll give it a try here and see if it is more convenient than percents.

Glad that you like the new books, please feel free to share some renderings for our gallery :)


Yes this would only work though if a person saved the pdf with bleed. I guess the smart option would be, if at all possible, for it to “read” the bleed value of the pdf. Now let’s see the bleed value was 20mm because that’s what the printer required, but boxshot only needed 5mm, then it would only take 5mm of the 20mm bleed.

If boxshot cannot read the bleed value from the pdf, then the person would then create the artwork with say 5mm bleed specially for boxshot and then write in boxshot “5mm”

I have loads of images for your gallery: here is one: https://we.tl/t-IhkQSu4D9a

For almost 15 years of Boxshot, I don't think someone ever asked for supporting bleeds, so I believe the artwork is prepared a different way for rendering. There is a request for multi-page PDF support and maybe we can consider adding better trim/bleed boxes support there, but so far Boxshot uses crop box when loading PDF and AI files. Providing that we have a "crop texture" option, it might be quite confusing to use both at the same time. Anyway, you are very welcome to submit a separate "idea" request for bleeds, so we can hear the others.

Thanks for the image, if you have more - you are very welcome to post a bulk link privately :)

Honestly, until I started the beta testing, the need for bleeding so that you could render over the edge never occurred to me! The level of detail that you have gone into to make this look good is really amazing.

I suspect that the 5% stretch won’t make any difference in real life. 

I will make some time to upload some renders (I have a lot, but will select some nice ones).

I will submit a separate idea as you suggest.

Commenting disabled