Author Topic: 'missing jpg review' problem for eps vector (Read 5354 times)

mtkang · « **on:** December 13, 2010, 02:44 »

I notice all my pending and newly uploaded eps will always appear with a message 'missing jpg review', even i have uploaded together with a full size jpg.

anyone is seeing this problem in veer?

mtkang · « **Reply #1 on:** December 13, 2010, 07:31 »

when i try to upload, the jpg preview uploaded together with eps is always rejected, and the message is the jpg is too small, but it is 4000x4000 pixels..

helix7 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 13, 2010, 09:08 »

I've never uploaded a jpg at Veer. Just the eps file, no jpg preview.

mtkang · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2010, 09:14 »

the jpg preview is for the IPTC data to get read.. it was fine before, i wonder are they doing some maintainance?

Quote from: helix7 on December 13, 2010, 09:08

I've never uploaded a jpg at Veer. Just the eps file, no jpg preview.

bittersweet · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2010, 11:42 »

Quote from: mtkang on December 13, 2010, 09:14

the jpg preview is for the IPTC data to get read.. it was fine before, i wonder are they doing some maintainance?

Quote from: helix7 on December 13, 2010, 09:08

I've never uploaded a jpg at Veer. Just the eps file, no jpg preview.

They did some maintenance over the weekend. Maybe it's related? And I upload my own jpg previews now also, both for the IPTC data and because most of the ones that were automatically generated during those early months were wrecked and still look like crap, with edges cropped off, dull colors, etc.

joingated · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2010, 13:03 »

I've had that the last 2 uploads via FTP. I fixed it by making my jpegs 7000 x 7000px. A right pain but worked!

mtkang · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2010, 13:17 »

i don't understand why there is a restriction of setting a 4900pixel edge raster jpg, what one should do with that old eps+jpg? i usually make it 4500 longer edge..

anyway, possible to let system to generate the sizes? just like most of the agencies do? upload eps and they will generate to the size they want to sell..

cthoman · « **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2010, 13:33 »

Quote from: Brian O'Shea on December 13, 2010, 13:04

Hi -

We did make some changes on the vector upload process over the weekend. I'll be posting some news on this release, including a new walkthrough tutorial video from Shawn later today.

To keep you moving in the meantime though - the new JPEG version requirement is 4900px + .
A large JPEG file is required for not only the preview, but also to support a full-slate of rasterized JPEG versions of each vector that will be made available to the customer. Additionally - JPEGs are now required - we are moving away from the automated preview system that whatalife referenced.

More to come...

- Brian

- Brian

You do realize that some of us already have thousands of images that are already created, tagged and ready to go. This sounds like it will create a clerical nightmare that would probably be resolved by just not uploading any of it.

cthoman · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2010, 16:08 »

OK. I just tried one and had the same problem as the OP (my jpeg was too small). This is a shame. Veer had a great and simple system before. Why create something new? I was planning on uploading the rest of my back catalog there next year, but I can't imagine taking the time to create and tag new jpegs just for one agency.

marish · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2011, 07:25 »

Quote from: cthoman on December 13, 2010, 16:08

OK. I just tried one and had the same problem as the OP (my jpeg was too small). This is a shame. Veer had a great and simple system before. Why create something new? I was planning on uploading the rest of my back catalog there next year, but I can't imagine taking the time to create and tag new jpegs just for one agency.

I second this - with this new JPEG size requirement Veer are shooting themselves in the foot.

I mean, while I do value my income from Veer, it's still marginal in comparison to other sites and definitely does not justify a separate workflow (no to mention the increased upload times) that this requires.

Why change something that works?!!!