DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Suggestions >> 150kb size limit has to go!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 95, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/27/2007 07:14:06 AM · #1
I have come to the point where I find it just about impossible to produce an expectable image at 640 and less then 150kb in size. I have a nice image I would like to submit for the Free Study but no matter what I do I can not get the file under 150kb. It has a great deal of detail even saving at quality 2 in Photoshop it is still about 150kb and looks like crap and would never even think about submitting something like that. Come on, get rid of this ridicules limitation.
11/27/2007 07:24:56 AM · #2
are you using 'save for the web'? I thought the limit was in place to help the pages load for those without a fast connection.
11/27/2007 07:26:11 AM · #3
Originally posted by cheekymunky:

are you using 'save for the web'? I thought the limit was in place to help the pages load for those without a fast connection.


I didn't try "Save for WEB" will give it a try.

Thanks,
11/27/2007 07:28:52 AM · #4
I agree with Tom, though saving for the web should help him much, we answered a poll not to long back about what connection speeds we were using and there were not alot of us on the slower connections anymore.

I think we should move it up to the 200Kb limit, to aide the people with the larger cameras, and to still stay low enough that the connection speed will not be effected very much.

Tom, I have a Canon 40d, with the same amount of Megapixels as your E-3. If you save for web, then you should get a respectable image under the 150kb limit.

Hope this helps.

11/27/2007 07:29:06 AM · #5
have a look: here

It will work a treat, I'm sure!
11/27/2007 07:34:40 AM · #6
Saving for web did help. Thanks for the suggetion.
11/27/2007 08:14:13 AM · #7
not that i'm advocating for or against 150kb limit, but how many people here do not have a high-speed (DSL/CABLE/ISDN/etc...) connection?

Anyone still running at 14.4kbs? =P
11/27/2007 08:31:30 AM · #8
there was a poll recently about this... but I can't rememeber the results!
11/27/2007 09:15:10 AM · #9
Originally posted by cheekymunky:

there was a poll recently about this... but I can't rememeber the results!

It was very close to 3% of all being on dial up.
11/27/2007 09:15:50 AM · #10
I'm not trying to stir up a nest - this has been debated many times - but I am curious why "those with larger cameras" need this help. That statement makes no sense at all to me. Proper resize techniques and methods of sharpening, saving, etc., are what those people need to use. Folks, there are some AMAZING pictures on this site, and they are at 640x480 and 150kb. The idea of this restriction hurting the users of "big" cameras more than it does the users of "small" cameras just doesn't make any sense at all to me. I'm not trying to be insulting or combative - I just don't see how that applies.
11/27/2007 09:20:09 AM · #11
Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

there was a poll recently about this... but I can't rememeber the results!

It was very close to 3% of all being on dial up.


Wow, thats a lot lower than I expected. I don't see really see the need to increase the limit unless the 640 pixel limit is increased, but that would open a whole new can of worms (thats already been debated ad nauseum!), main point being people who pinch images and palm them off as their own.

If it ain't broken don't fix it!

(although being a engineer my motto is "if it aint broken fix it 'till it is!")
11/27/2007 10:37:53 AM · #12
Originally posted by nards656:

I'm not trying to stir up a nest - this has been debated many times - but I am curious why "those with larger cameras" need this help. That statement makes no sense at all to me. Proper resize techniques and methods of sharpening, saving, etc., are what those people need to use. Folks, there are some AMAZING pictures on this site, and they are at 640x480 and 150kb. The idea of this restriction hurting the users of "big" cameras more than it does the users of "small" cameras just doesn't make any sense at all to me. I'm not trying to be insulting or combative - I just don't see how that applies.

I agree that it's not the camera. However, there are times when a photo just has too much detail to get acceptable results at 150kb. I've not run into it often, but have a similar scenario for this month's Free Study. Ended up playing around with canvas size and border width to increase the amount of non-detailed space (resulting in a smaller image area, but still 640 max) to squeak under the 150kb limit (and it still lost considerable detail).
11/27/2007 10:46:39 AM · #13
Most of the time I feel I would like 720px instead of 640px and keep 150kb if 200kb is an issue with storage space. Most shots just look so much better at 720px. Sure there where a couple of times when images with a lot of detail where hard to compress and make look good but most of the time I'm finding I would like to post at higher res and not resort to cropping.

Member challenges can be get 200kb whilst still leaving 150kb for Open challenges?
11/27/2007 10:53:15 AM · #14
I had to seriously compress my entry for the Open this week. It's a sure sign it's entirely too busy for DPC when that happens. :-)
11/27/2007 10:58:42 AM · #15
Just get a crappy 15" CRT monitor and you won't know any better. Ignorance is bliss.
11/27/2007 11:23:09 AM · #16
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by nards656:

I'm not trying to stir up a nest - this has been debated many times - but I am curious why "those with larger cameras" need this help. That statement makes no sense at all to me. Proper resize techniques and methods of sharpening, saving, etc., are what those people need to use. Folks, there are some AMAZING pictures on this site, and they are at 640x480 and 150kb. The idea of this restriction hurting the users of "big" cameras more than it does the users of "small" cameras just doesn't make any sense at all to me. I'm not trying to be insulting or combative - I just don't see how that applies.

I agree that it's not the camera. However, there are times when a photo just has too much detail to get acceptable results at 150kb. I've not run into it often, but have a similar scenario for this month's Free Study. Ended up playing around with canvas size and border width to increase the amount of non-detailed space (resulting in a smaller image area, but still 640 max) to squeak under the 150kb limit (and it still lost considerable detail).


This is basically what I was refering to also when making the statement, I have had trouble sometimes where I need to set the image quality very low on the save for web setting that it had lost a good deal of the image quality. It has happened to me a few times.
11/27/2007 12:08:37 PM · #17
Just out of interest, on the few challenges we have had with a 720 pixel (200kb) limit, how many of the entries utilised that?
11/27/2007 12:09:36 PM · #18
Originally posted by cheekymunky:

Just out of interest, on the few challenges we have had with a 720 pixel (200kb) limit, how many of the entries utilised that?


I know I used it everytime it was offered when I was entering into the challenge.
11/27/2007 12:33:57 PM · #19
I use 720 pixels @ 200kb when its available.

I'd actually like to push for a combined width*height restriction, rather than a longest side restriction, too, if we are talking about this subject :)

I do quite a bit of shooting at a 16:9 aspect ratio now. If I enter with a 640 width, the height is such that my entry is about 1/3rd smaller than an equivalent 3:2 aspect ratio shot. It works out that for the same screen area, a 16:9 image should be about 722x426

So perhaps there could be some sort of combined range limits on width/ height to allow panoramic entries or different crops ? The best way to game that particular system is to enter square images just now.

I'm sure this could have scored lower if you could have really seen it properly

581845.jpg


11/27/2007 12:54:40 PM · #20
One of the 3% (here and elsewhere). Agree that 150 kb and 640 can be a problem for certain kinds of shots. Most of the high scoring photos do not have the kind of detail that require even the full 150 kb - in fact many files could be a lot smaller. However, I think the size restriction is the more serious drawback. As well, I would like to see more space around the photo: I am frequently irked by the blue bar at the top; moving the screen up to eliminate it helps a little.
As for the occasional 720 option, most programs have an automatic 640 resizer, or at least the 640 becomes habit.
(My 2 cents times 3 percent = something?)
11/27/2007 03:15:43 PM · #21
I use 720 / 200 for ALL side challenges since the last poll and have heard nothing about it. If the screen is too small or there are too many 'menu bars' F11 works wonders!

11/27/2007 07:17:56 PM · #22
What is F11?
11/27/2007 07:23:49 PM · #23
Originally posted by tnun:

What is F11?


F11, on Internet Explorer, Firefox and possibly other browsers, takes you to a "full screen" mode which minimizes the space taken up by browser menus & toolbars and therefore maximizes the space available to display a web page or an image.
11/27/2007 07:27:29 PM · #24
In the past, we've been reluctant to change the limit because we still had a small but significant number of dialup users. That number has shrunk to 3.2% per the last poll, and is shrinking at the rate of half every two years. Moving to a somewhat higher file size seems at this point to be a reasonable thing to do.
We've talked about coupling the 720px change to a file size increase, though nothing is yet set in stone. In order to implement either, we really need to revamp the voting page, which is a bigger task than it seems. I can't comment on a timeline, but a show of public support cannot hurt ;-)
11/27/2007 07:35:22 PM · #25
Originally posted by kirbic:


In order to implement either, we really need to revamp the voting page, which is a bigger task than it seems. I can't comment on a timeline, but a show of public support cannot hurt ;-)


Does it need layout or technical revamping?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/13/2017 01:02:23 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2017 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/13/2017 01:02:23 PM EST.