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 51 - 75 of 95, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/27/2007 10:35:42 PM · #51
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by d56ranger:
I'm afraid that mnphotoblogger is comparing apples to oranges here. They being photo dimensions vs internet speed; the poll only showed photo dimensions.

There were four other polls over the course of 5 years which showed connection speed (see kirbic's post above)

And what they showed was how drastically the 56k connections were decreasing. From 24.6% in 2002 to 3.19% this year. At that rate there will be perhaps 1% of users on 56k by Nov 2008. Either way, there are 44 users (who responded to the poll) currently connecting on 56k. It takes something like 25 seconds for them to view a 150k image. If that increases to 200k it's only going to increase their download time by 5-10 seconds.

I don't think the impact would be significant.


Acccccttttuuuuaaaalllllly,
I was able to vote in the duotone challenge. I guess because of the "simple" color, the images took about 30 to 45 seconds to load. That was fast. In a normal challenge it is more like a minute to a minute and a half.

On another site, where the limit is 200k, it takes about 2 minutes for the images using all the potential size to load.

Right now, i'm connected at 44Kbps -- it is a fast night tonight. :)

Sorry if that doesn't "jive" with your math, but that is about the average times I find in a typical voting/viewing experience.

So, in one respect you are right. The impact is not all that significant. The pain in the butt will just be a bigger pain in the butt. :)
 11/27/2007 11:24:39 PM · #52
Originally posted by Gordon:
Any thought on accomodation of other emerging aspect ratios


Well, I personally think it's a good idea. But I also know that there is a concern that if we allow more in width than in height, we're "favoring" the landscape orientation. That's true, but I don't really know if it makes a difference. Take it for what it's worth.
If we allowed some combination of W+H, say 1440px, then we have the potential for images that are either wider or taller than most screen dimensions. That's both hard to accommodate in voting page layout, and it would make voting very difficult for many, who could not view the entire image.
I surely wish that the "standard" laptop screens weren't a lousy 1024x768, but they are, and for better or worse, we'll have a large portion of voters using that resolution for some time to come.
 11/28/2007 04:26:37 AM · #53
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.


that's a weak excuse from the admins. i mean, would you like your chef to cook something crappy because he was only allocated to use 150mL of water for each dish he cooks?
 11/28/2007 05:01:55 AM · #54
Originally posted by karmat:
Sorry if that doesn't "jive" with your math, but that is about the average times I find in a typical voting/viewing experience.

lol! - Well, I was just using Photoshop's 'save for web' estimates to get these timings.

It must take you ages to vote at that sort of connection speed. That doesn't jive, man.
 11/28/2007 08:17:23 AM · #55
Originally posted by crayon:

that's a weak excuse from the admins. i mean, would you like your chef to cook something crappy because he was only allocated to use 150mL of water for each dish he cooks?


Good grief man, can you be more negative?

Let's look at the data... as recently as 30 months ago, over 13% were connecting at dialup speeds, which theoretically maxed out at around 53kb/s. Realistically, dialup throughputs range from about 48k down to about 30k, or even lower. At 48k, it takes nearly half a minute to load a 150k image, and below 30k, you're looking at nearly a minute, assuming there are *no* other delays.
There are also some in Europe that pay by bandwidth used, though I don't know if this type of billing is still prevalent.
In short, the 150k limit has been a good compromise for the image size we've been working with. Is it time for a change? Yes. The community has resoundingly said so, and we agree. I really wish we had this in place today, but we don't. As I posted above, public support doesn't hurt. Note the word "support."
11/28/2007 08:52:47 AM · #56
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Any thought on accomodation of other emerging aspect ratios


Well, I personally think it's a good idea. But I also know that there is a concern that if we allow more in width than in height, we're "favoring" the landscape orientation. That's true, but I don't really know if it makes a difference. Take it for what it's worth.
If we allowed some combination of W+H, say 1440px, then we have the potential for images that are either wider or taller than most screen dimensions. That's both hard to accommodate in voting page layout, and it would make voting very difficult for many, who could not view the entire image.
I surely wish that the "standard" laptop screens weren't a lousy 1024x768, but they are, and for better or worse, we'll have a large portion of voters using that resolution for some time to come.


You could always use something like W*H < 307200 and then limit the maximum width to 1000 and the maximum height to 720/768 or something like that. Most people would still enter 640x480 or 480x640 and wouldn't be affected. If people wanted to enter 16:9 aspect ratio images, they could use 720x420 and have an image with almost the same screen area. Currently with a 16:9 ratio shot, the screen area is one third smaller than a standard shot - that's quite a large penalty/ reduction for those images, just to put it in context.

At the other end, I can enter a 640x640 image under the current rules and get an image with one third more screen area

11/28/2007 10:29:12 AM · #57
I just want to say, I agree 100% with the title of this thread.

Kirbic mentioned something about places in europe charging by bandwidth usage, I believe several countries have this going on still. I am almost 100% sure of at least one provider in Wellington New Zealand that still has a plan like that, They sell you a set amount of minutes and charge you extra for each minute over the limit. I have used a dial up connection in NZ to view pages here in the states and it wasn't painfully slow however I can see where anyone still using a 56k modem or slower would be bumming out on a free study challenge if they wanted to vote 100% of the challenge.
 11/28/2007 10:41:00 AM · #58
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Any thought on accomodation of other emerging aspect ratios


Well, I personally think it's a good idea. But I also know that there is a concern that if we allow more in width than in height, we're "favoring" the landscape orientation. That's true, but I don't really know if it makes a difference. Take it for what it's worth.
If we allowed some combination of W+H, say 1440px, then we have the potential for images that are either wider or taller than most screen dimensions. That's both hard to accommodate in voting page layout, and it would make voting very difficult for many, who could not view the entire image.
I surely wish that the "standard" laptop screens weren't a lousy 1024x768, but they are, and for better or worse, we'll have a large portion of voters using that resolution for some time to come.


You could always use something like W*H < 307200 and then limit the maximum width to 1000 and the maximum height to 720/768 or something like that. Most people would still enter 640x480 or 480x640 and wouldn't be affected. If people wanted to enter 16:9 aspect ratio images, they could use 720x420 and have an image with almost the same screen area. Currently with a 16:9 ratio shot, the screen area is one third smaller than a standard shot - that's quite a large penalty/ reduction for those images, just to put it in context.

At the other end, I can enter a 640x640 image under the current rules and get an image with one third more screen area


Good points!
 11/28/2007 04:25:07 PM · #59
Originally posted by Gordon:
At the other end, I can enter a 640x640 image under the current rules and get an image with one third more screen area


Which is a very big advantage. I've yet to see a photographer who enters a high number in that format and not do well.
 11/28/2007 04:51:22 PM · #60
Someone mentioned the figure of 720 pixels. Perhaps I am dense. Why 720? 800 pixels and 200k sounds like a logical step up to me. It would give a lot more image area and still fit on most screens.
 11/28/2007 04:58:11 PM · #61
Originally posted by yospiff:
Someone mentioned the figure of 720 pixels. Perhaps I am dense. Why 720? 800 pixels and 200k sounds like a logical step up to me. It would give a lot more image area and still fit on most screens.


720x720 was proposed for the following reasons:
- There are a large number of users using 1024x768 because a high number of the first generation of 17-inch LCD displays, and a *very* large number of laptop displays have this resolution
- The largest image that fits vertically within the constraints of a 1024x768 screen space is about 720px high, best case (full screen mode)
- There is some resistance to allowing a greater width than height, and thus "favoring" one orientation
 11/28/2007 05:01:46 PM · #62
Originally posted by kirbic:

- There is some resistance to allowing a greater width than height, and thus "favoring" one orientation


Why cant we just state max size in either direction type of thing that we do now? I think it says max dimension size of 640 pixels, but doesnt give a direction. Thus that lends itself to 720x720 or portrait mode or landscape mode.
 11/28/2007 05:19:31 PM · #63
Just my two cents worth here. I only have a laptop, and the 720ppi portrait orientation doesn't fit fully on my display, with the browser junk at the tip and bottom. If i disable the navigation tool bar, an have no tabs, and remove the task bar at the bottom, I can see the whole thing, but that's a bit of a pain. Anyway, I don't feel I can evaluate or appreciate an image properly if I can't see the entire image without scrolling up and down. So anything taller than 720ppi would be a real problem for me.
 11/28/2007 05:23:28 PM · #64
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
Just my two cents worth here. I only have a laptop, and the 720ppi portrait orientation doesn't fit fully on my display, with the browser junk at the tip and bottom. If i disable the navigation tool bar, an have no tabs, and remove the task bar at the bottom, I can see the whole thing, but that's a bit of a pain. Anyway, I don't feel I can evaluate or appreciate an image properly if I can't see the entire image without scrolling up and down. So anything taller than 720ppi would be a real problem for me.


Right. The easiest way to get the whole image is to hit F11 for "full screen mode." Works in both Firefox and IE, and possibly other browsers. Hit F11 again to return to normal mode.
 11/30/2007 12:42:29 AM · #65
Has the idea of dynamic image sizing ever been put into play, this way regardless of your monitor size an 800x800 photo would resize according to your resolution. Or perhaps even a 640x640 image that is clickable to pop up a larger resolution photo?

I don't know if the HD space on the dpchallenge servers is a constraint but uploading a 800x800 photo then just writing a quick php/perl script to resize according to the competition would not be difficult.
 11/30/2007 12:49:37 AM · #66
Automated resizing leads to trouble since the photographer would no longer have control over things like post-resize sharpening.
 11/30/2007 12:51:43 AM · #67
Shudders at the thought of automated image resizing.
 11/30/2007 01:53:44 AM · #68
i guess that is true about the sharpening, but what about a setup like dpreview's forums where the picture resizes for the forum width, but you can click it to enlarge it beyond that...
 04/08/2008 06:54:26 PM · #69
This is really tiring, as the last 10 or so challenges I could get an image to the 150k limit without going to less than 50% quality setting in CS3's save to web or adding some sorry a$$ blur. This sucks!
 04/08/2008 07:18:49 PM · #70
I would love it if the file size was larger. First off I have a 22 inch monitor and those pictures start looking mighty small at 1680*1050 resolution.... I find myself wanting to zoom in on the pictures... but I can't.... I submit my gallery at 800*600 and I like it much better. Honestly 3 percent is not enough to make the other 97 percent miss out....
On the another note I am amazed at how amazing some images look here when saved for web even at 150 kb. I think honestly its time for this to happen.
 04/08/2008 07:31:15 PM · #71
I think increasing the image size is a great idea. It will help all the blind voters!
 04/09/2008 02:45:19 PM · #72
Originally posted by stupidcat:
I think increasing the image size is a great idea. It will help all the blind voters!

lol no comment... :-)
 04/09/2008 03:08:04 PM · #73
not trying to be [can't think of the word I want right now], but you do realize that member's challenges are 200K, don't you (you being plural, not any individual)
 04/09/2008 03:37:04 PM · #74
Originally posted by karmat:
not trying to be [can't think of the word I want right now], but you do realize that member's challenges are 200K, don't you (you being plural, not any individual)


You do realize that all challenges are not member challenges?
 04/09/2008 04:06:00 PM · #75
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by karmat:
not trying to be [can't think of the word I want right now], but you do realize that member's challenges are 200K, don't you (you being plural, not any individual)


You do realize that all challenges are not member challenges?


No, really????

Everyone that had posted in this revival was a member.

NOTHING was said about the current 200K allowance in member's challenges (you know, something like, "In the members challenges, the extra 50 helps a bit, but in the open challenges, blah blah blah).

I was simply making sure that everyone was aware that it is a feature allowed for members -- just in case someone missed the memo.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 10:08:16 AM

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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 10:08:16 AM EDT.