640? - DPChallenge Forums

01/24/2007 06:55:26 AM · #1

why the image must be so small? if the problems is the bandwitdth, i can understand it.. but if the problem are the in monitor visualization, no! many times when i vote i had whised that pic where more and more bigger!

Falc

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/24/2007 07:00:27 AM · #2

Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3

Ben

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

01/24/2007 07:06:46 AM · #3

Could we not have user preference?

So the photographer uploads at say 800 max pixels, but the viewer has the option to see images at 640 max, so for him the images are automatically scaled down to 640?

AlexSaberi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/24/2007 07:11:51 AM · #4

Originally posted by Kerm:

I like that idea.

I find it odd that some people are still using 800x600.

KarenNfld

01/24/2007 07:14:30 AM · #5

Originally posted by Kerm:

Not fond of this idea, Worth1000 does something similar and the photos all look fuzzy, not clear at all.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

01/24/2007 07:16:13 AM · #6

Shoggy, this topic has only been coverd about a hundred times! DPC have run multiple surveys asking what people would like to see, what resolution they run their monitors at etc, and the result of all that is that in the majority of challenges we are asked to submit at 640. Its a major annoyance for a lot of people, but the facts/figures are there and when you look at them with an open mind the decision does make sense. I daresay that when more people run their monitors at higher resolutions there may well be a review of the rules. I lot of people will certainly welcome it.

Saying that however, the Minimilism challenge allows us 720 pixels, and the preview I have makes my image look a lot better. A few other challenges in the past have also waived the 640px cap.

In reply to Alexsaberi: Its not a case of running monitors at 800x600, even people running the most popular resolution of 1024x768 are not going to see a portrait orientated image of 720px. Bear in mind that 768 pixels has to be shared bewteen the toolbar in Windows XP (the most popular OS on this site) and the top of the browser window as well as the image itself, so generally the users would only see 75% of the picture (without scrolling). Granted, I know we can hide the tool bar and run our browsers fullscreen, but its not always convinient.

Also, I dont like the idea of server side resizing. I want people to see the image exactly how I uploaded it, not take the chance that a server-side resize will make it look soft & fuzzy. I guess we could have the option of uploading two versions of our entries.. One with a max 640px and one at 720px. This would be the most realistic solution.

But you already knew that :-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-24 07:22:17.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

01/24/2007 07:30:08 AM · #7

Originally posted by shoggy:

Okay well my screen is 1280x1024 for the record but anyone with ascreen of 800x600 wouldnt want an image larger then 720.

If you cant get your image across at 640x640 or smaller then your image just doesnt do it.

Almost ever server side resize using the GD library is set to JPEG 75 or 80... on PURPOSE!

Message edited by author 2007-01-24 07:31:26.

Ben

Canon EOS-30D

01/24/2007 07:37:10 AM · #8

Then use a server sid resize program that doesn't make it soft and fuzzy.

01/24/2007 07:40:34 AM · #9

Originally posted by marksimms:

I guess we could have the option of uploading two versions of our entries.. One with a max 640px and one at 720px. This would be the most realistic solution.

But you already knew that :-)

i think that the problem here:

"Your submission must be: ..at least 160 pixels, and no more than 640 pixels on each side."

1) 160px on every monitor sucks! i think that the lower bound must be raised, how many times have you seen a ribbon image that have the artistic cut of 160X in one side???
2) is so difficult to set some variables? why "on each side"? if the lower bound is 1024*768 monitor (an also here:how many photography lover have you seen with a so poor monitor resolution?), then set that the maximum resolution must be someting like 1000*700.
3) why webmaster are so afraid of scrolling?? even when if I put my monitor in 1024*768 i've noticed that if i what to vote a pict that is high 640px, i must scoll down! why i need to see the dpchallenge upper banner to vote?

hanneke

01/24/2007 07:44:34 AM · #10

3) I don't think the webmasters are afraid of scrolling, the voters are.
When I have an entry f.e. in square crop, when 720 is permitted, I go for the 640 px, because I don't like to scroll through a photo, especially when it's my own.

my 2 cents.

01/24/2007 07:45:05 AM · #11

Originally posted by Kerm:

Then use a server sid resize program that doesn't make it soft and fuzzy.

Such as?

Personally I wouldnt trust any image manipulating software I dont have control over to resize an image I am entering for a challenge. Also I like to sharpen after I resize, and wouldnt trust a server based app to apply the degree of sharpening a particular size of image warrants. I mean, some images look great with no sharpening after resizing, some need a little bit, some need a lot.. Post-resize sharpening can make or break and image and I wouldnt want to leave that to a script. Does that make sense?

No, the best way is to maybe present the option to upload two versions of your image in the respective sizes.

goc

Apple iPhone 4

01/24/2007 07:45:20 AM · #12

Originally posted by Kerm:

Then use a server side resize program that doesn't make it soft and fuzzy.

php image-resize-functions would probably kill the server with so many requests towards ./image.php?IMAGE_ID=XXXXXX so imho this is not an option ... on another side in upload process this issues can be resolved with auto creating of 3 sizes but this would probably multiply the storage by 2.5X :-)

dwterry

01/24/2007 07:45:40 AM · #13

Originally posted by Kerm:

Then use a server side resize program that doesn't make it soft and fuzzy.

The last thing I do before uploading an image into the challenge is: 1) re-size, and 2) sharpen. Step #2 is vital because downsizing an image makes it go "soft and fuzzy". But the problem is this: how MUCH sharpening does the image need to make it sharp once again? And the answer will be different for every image based on its original size, based on its original content, based on how much USM sharpening had been applied before it was downsized. In fact, in many cases, after I sharpen, I will then use the history brush and undo some of the sharpening (advanced editing challenges only!) so that only the parts of the image that should be sharpened are touched.

Now... I'd like to see the "server side sharpening" that is smart enough to do all that!

So while I agree, I would like to see larger images, I would definitely be opposed to having the server touch my image in any way. And truth be told, I'm happy with the compromise of 720px that the site has come up with. I wouldn't mind more 720px challenges, but I think the way they are handling it now has struck a happy medium.

01/24/2007 07:47:28 AM · #14

You dont have to use 160px. its just a lower boundary.. this is a completely non-sensical argument.

Completely confused.

DWTerry.. I beat you to the sharpening argument :-) (only by about 35 seconds)

Originally posted by shoggy:

1) 160px on every monitor sucks! i think that the lower bound must be raised, how many times have you seen a ribbon image that have the artistic cut of 160X in one side???

Message edited by author 2007-01-24 07:48:39.

01/24/2007 08:12:02 AM · #15

Originally posted by marksimms:

You dont have to use 160px. its just a lower boundary.. this is a completely non-sensical argument.

i know that i "don't have to"! what i want to said is that a stupid range IMHO!

what about the 2) point?? nothing smart to say? :)

dwterry

01/24/2007 08:12:56 AM · #16

Originally posted by marksimms:

DWTerry.. I beat you to the sharpening argument :-) (only by about 35 seconds)

Sometimes I'm just too verbose! :-)

01/24/2007 08:18:58 AM · #17

Originally posted by shoggy:

Originally posted by marksimms:
You dont have to use 160px. its just a lower boundary.. this is a completely non-sensical argument.

i know that i "don't have to"! what i want to said is that a stupid range IMHO!

what about the 2) point?? nothing smart to say? :)

nah, still too shocked at the mentality of the first part. you mentalist!

You mean this part? I have plenty to say about that... such as "WTF are you on about?".

"2) is so difficult to set some variables? why "on each side"? if the lower bound is 1024*768 monitor (an also here:how many photography lover have you seen with a so poor monitor resolution?), then set that the maximum resolution must be someting like 1000*700. "

Message edited by author 2007-01-24 08:21:44.

01/24/2007 08:27:39 AM · #18

Originally posted by marksimms:

nah, still too shocked at the mentality of the first part. you mentalist!

You mean this part? I have plenty to say about that... such as "WTF are you on about?".

bih, che camurria!

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/24/2007 08:33:54 AM · #19

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by marksimms:
DWTerry.. I beat you to the sharpening argument :-) (only by about 35 seconds)

Sometimes I'm just too verbose! :-)

Although I am surprised at how uncannily similar our posts were.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

01/24/2007 10:57:36 AM · #20

Originally posted by shoggy:

The lower boundary was set so that people wouldn't enter an "image" that was 640 x 3 or something stupid like that. Yes, it would happen. No, they probably wouldn't be trying to ribbon. More likely trying to make a point.

Originally posted by shoggy:

2) is so difficult to set some variables? why "on each side"? if the lower bound is 1024*768 monitor (an also here:how many photography lover have you seen with a so poor monitor resolution?), then set that the maximum resolution must be someting like 1000*700.

Not everyone who is a "photography lover" has every resource in their home dedicated to to their love. Also, many people have no control over their monitors at work, etc. Also, I don't understand your issue with "on each side."

Originally posted by shoggy:

3) why webmaster are so afraid of scrolling?? even when if I put my monitor in 1024*768 i've noticed that if i what to vote a pict that is high 640px, i must scoll down! why i need to see the dpchallenge upper banner to vote?

This has been answered already in several of the posts above.

_______

It may change in the future, I do not know. But for now this is how it is, and I don't think there are changes coming in the immediate future.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

01/24/2007 11:00:29 AM · #21

Originally posted by AlexSaberi:

Originally posted by Kerm:
Could we not have user preference?

So the photographer uploads at say 800 max pixels, but the viewer has the option to see images at 640 max, so for him the images are automatically scaled down to 640?

I like that idea.

I find it odd that some people are still using 800x600.

You find it odd some people still have pentium 3 733mhz Laptops with 14.1 inch TFT's that wont do more then 800x600. There not obsolete..... yet... almost. But yeah I hate anything below 1152x820 1280x1024 has served me well.

Remember people with laptop displays or flatscreens cant go above the screens max res. These arent like tubes that have higher max reses then the default.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/24/2007 11:14:08 AM · #22

640x160 = semi-panorama. That's why it is set that way, I have always assumed.

R.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/24/2007 11:17:00 AM · #23

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

640x160 = semi-panorama. That's why it is set that way, I have always assumed.

R.

That too. :)

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/24/2007 12:00:54 PM · #24

Can I pleeeez post a popcorn gif here??

No offense to anyone; it's just really frustrating to have to go through all these arguments with the same responses on a regular basis :(

dwterry