There isn’t really a point in increasing the resolution… we’re not an image database. The 650px width limit is more than enough for our use of reference.
not sure what you mean “blurry”, images usually aren’t blurry when viewed in their native resolution since we downscale from high-resolution sources (unless you have the page zoomed in from your browser or it is from a low-quality source like many old shows).
If it’s from a low quality cover and you can find a higher resolution, you can use our submission system to replace it.
(not to mention legality I think, thumbnails could probably be excused as fair use… but having full-resolution images could be taken down for copyright or something.)
The images aren’t particularly blurry when viewed using the current UI but most cover images are blurry when you zoom in or open the image in a new tab, however, you can immediately notice the difference in quality when looking at cover images when posted on twitter on the website twitter account and when opening the page on the website.
I get that the website is not intended as an image database but I feel like cover images provide information on their own as well. I feel like the bare minimum should be adding the url of the original image to the database to provide users with the full quality image.
As for the legality of using full resolution images, if it counts as copyright infringement, then just having the full resolution image url should suffice.
I just thought it would improve the website’s user experience as I’ve always noticed this issue.