| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2004 07:11:01 PM · #51 |
| i dont see the 150Kb limit too much of a problem, all i do is open it in paint and save it there, that automatically compresses the file and he size is almost halved |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 07:15:00 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by bledford:
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
(BTW off topic but on subject) I'm also obsessed with the same issue in music. i think most CDs sound like "crap" compared to vinyl thanks to freq. compression. Needless to say mp3s which destroy quality music thru compression, are barley worth listening to. |
I think this sums up your position on compression better than anything you've said yet. You appear to be among an elite few who can distinguish (or care to distinguish) between the perceived levels of quality in various audio distribution methods. Most people simply hear what you hear and move on. But you're an audiophile and you get annoyed. In the photography world, most people see what you see as well, but they just accept it and move on. You might be a photophile. Nothing wrong with that, it's just difficult to look at your opinion as somehow representative of the collective majority. |
Thanks for you constructive comments. I didn't intend to start a heated debate. I just feel that we should strive to continue to improve and grow with the times. If I'm slightly ahead so be it, I would much rather deal with what we have now (which I think is great) than to do without. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 07:18:13 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by Pedro:
so you're telling me you can see compression artifacts in this photo?
it's only 128KB, so it can't possibly be anything but crap.
|
You are being a little literal aren't you? Your photo doen't contain alot that would make it large does it? The colors are most oranges & yellows with alot of continous tones. To over simplfy JPG compresson "describes" the image in mathamatical terms. Instead of indivdually describing each pixel, it can say the next 30 pixels are this color yellow. 128k might be a perfect balance of quality to compression for your image, but another image at the same resoultion might look like "crap"
BTW GREAT image;-) |
Literal? No. A little sarcastic perhaps, but that's my nature. :) Eddy's example with the rubber bands is far better than the the one I posted (not my image by the way). it was just one that stood out in my head as being very rich in detail, color and texture. My point was -and is - that 150KB is sufficient for web purposes such as ours, and jpeg artifacts are rarely an issue in this medium.
the other issue i haven't seen posted yet (forgive me if it's in there and i missed it) is that of image theft...bigger files are WAY more likely to be used by those we don't necessarily want using them... |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 07:57:16 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Manic:
The last poll we did on this was mid July this year:
56k or lower 111
Cable / DSL 650
T1 or greater 53
814 users participated.
As you can see, approx 15% of the userbase are still restricted to dialup, which is definitely a significant group (it even includes a couple of the SC, IIRC)... |
Maybe we are getting to the heart of the matter. btw, bold emphasis is mine, not in original post. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 08:24:53 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
...the other issue i haven't seen posted yet (forgive me if it's in there and i missed it) is that of image theft...bigger files are WAY more likely to be used by those we don't necessarily want using them... |
I mentioned that in the fourth post, and I think it's an important point to consider. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 08:31:04 PM · #56 |
| Are you forgeting that people actually live in areas where the pony express is still being used? |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 08:45:00 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by Manic:
The last poll we did on this was mid July this year:
56k or lower 111
Cable / DSL 650
T1 or greater 53
814 users participated.
As you can see, approx 15% of the userbase are still restricted to dialup, which is definitely a significant group (it even includes a couple of the SC, IIRC)... |
Maybe we are getting to the heart of the matter. btw, bold emphasis is mine, not in original post. |
Oh Puhh-leez!
Do you actually think that because one or two of the SC are on dialup that would influence a file size decision? I think not. The fact is, we have to look at the greatest benefit for the majority of users, and the fact is, at 640px, there is really no technical reason to raise the file size limit. I too have submitted photos that I needed to compress to between 50-60%, and have received NO comments on compression artifacts.
I also ran this test with three different target file sizes, and three image dimensions, using a very high detail photo. Take a look and see if you can tell the difference between them. It's very subtle.
Message edited by author 2004-11-16 20:46:21.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2004 08:50:10 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by gloda:
Would 800px pictures do well with the overall web layout of DPC? I like the confort of not having to open the pictures in a new/popup window.
Already now, most portrait pictures' height doesn't fit onto one screen. I feel that a ot of a picture's effect is lost when you have to scroll first to see the bottom of it... |
This is my concern, too.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2004 10:33:06 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I hate to sound cold, but who cares if âa significant percentage stillâ has dial-up connections. We are a photographic community and as such we will have larger files than say a text blog. Do you see the major online music sharing sites offer a mono 24mhz sampling rate versions of their songs for dial up users? No, of course not, so if sharing music is really important to you then you get a broadband connection.
In the same vein if photography really is a passion then maybe it is time to join the modern world and get broadband connection. If it is not available in your area then press you local officials into upgrading their infrastructure. Just the other day on CNN I saw a segment that the best economic indicator for a given area is their broadband infrastructure. |
There are a couple problems with this.
1. Many users still live in areas where broadband is simply not available.
2. Many of our overseas users pay based on data downloaded. I understand that this is aprticularly an issue in Iceland, where users are charged a fee per MB for data downloaded from out of the country. A surprising number of our members come from Iceland.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/16/2004 10:39:17 PM · #60 |
17.84kb
There is nothing wrong with the "quality" of the image is there?
|
|
|
|
11/16/2004 11:07:22 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
This image:
needed to be saved at JPEG quality 50 in the "Save For Web" dialog to get it under 150K. It is one of the worst types of images for JPEG compression.
That being said, I did not receive any "the JPEG artifacts totally ruined this photo". And this was at quality 50!
150K is plenty. |
This is a great example. As Eddy said, it is one of the worst types for compression artifacts, and there are plenty of them! But you don't notice them unless you specifically look for them. And challenge entries that stress compression to this extent are rare. I'm happy with the 150K limit. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 11:20:54 PM · #62 |
150K is fine and does not need to be changed. Those on the "I must have a larger image" should consider this, We are NOT receiving money or phyiscal prizes for the challenges we enter so it really does not matter if your image is 800x640 @ 250K or not.
Leave it at 640x480 @ 150k and be done with it. If you dont like it go to another photo challenge site that does allow you larger files and submit them there and submit the smaller file here.
Some people are just too darn picky for no reason other than "it HAS to be the best it can be".
James |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 10:53:55 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Leave it at 640x480 @ 150k and be done with it. If you dont like it go to another photo challenge site that does allow you larger files and submit them there and submit the smaller file here.
Some people are just too darn picky for no reason other than "it HAS to be the best it can be".
James |
I paid for my membership the same as you. The name of the forum is "web site suggestions", and if you don't want to see other MEMBER'S suggestions don't read them. Or like you rudely put it, you can go to another web site. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 11:20:56 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by saintnicholas_25:
17.84kb
There is nothing wrong with the "quality" of the image is there? |
well, it is a small image, and there are large areas of colour that can be compressed, but yes there is quite bad artifacting around the numbers. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 11:21:12 AM · #65 |
| You know, I have found that the 640x640/150k limit to actually save me money. I am a total gear head and in the old days if somebody said, "but this camera has more megapixels" I'd jump right into it. But now that I can see what is possible with such a small format I am concentrating on learning more about photography rather than buying more equipment. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 11:42:55 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by jab119:
Leave it at 640x480 @ 150k and be done with it. If you dont like it go to another photo challenge site that does allow you larger files and submit them there and submit the smaller file here.
Some people are just too darn picky for no reason other than "it HAS to be the best it can be".
James |
I paid for my membership the same as you. The name of the forum is "web site suggestions", and if you don't want to see other MEMBER'S suggestions don't read them. Or like you rudely put it, you can go to another web site. |
Yes i know it is a "web site suggestion", this topic keeps popping up from time to time and as a member I feel my imput to keep the file size as is, is just as important as everyone elses need to want it changed.
Again the larger file size gets you nothing in return except a warm fuzzy feeling.
Like I said before if money and physical prizes were at stake I would be all for the file size increase, but since all the winners get is bragin rights and a little ribbon next to their photo, that to me really does not justify the increased file size many here want
James
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 12:03:45 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Yes i know it is a "web site suggestion", this topic keeps popping up from time to time and as a member I feel my imput to keep the file size as is, is just as important as everyone elses need to want it changed.
Again the larger file size gets you nothing in return except a warm fuzzy feeling.
Like I said before if money and physical prizes were at stake I would be all for the file size increase, but since all the winners get is bragin rights and a little ribbon next to their photo, that to me really does not justify the increased file size many here want
James |
Hey, I totally respect opinion, and it looks like, at least for the near future, the rules aren't going to change. I just think like or leave it attitude was inappropriate for this particular forum. Let us just agree to disagree and go out and take some photos;-). |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 01:32:28 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Let us just agree to disagree and go out and take some photos;-). |
agreed!!!
James |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 02:04:17 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
(BTW off topic but on subject) I'm also obsessed with the same issue in music. i think most CDs sound like "crap" compared to vinyl thanks to freq. compression. Needless to say mp3s which destroy quality music thru compression, are barley worth listening to. |
Ummm, On subject, but getting futher off topic.. Why exactly are you using a digital camera that compresses a huge colour/light gamut to discrete steps of measurement?
Most folks are happy with MP3's because they can recognise the often good copy of the song, and sing-along to it. (In the privacy of their own home, I hate karaoke). CD's do for the masses, and I think 150k @ 640x480 is heaps for jpgs in the context of this site.
Without close inspection I'd say that most of the images on this site are artifact free where he user has used 100-150k and a reasonable package to save the image.
Given that I still own and use a turntable I can appreciate the idea, but I don't think I'd want to wait for 600*250k images to arrive, and I'm not a broadband connection.
I will probably not make it through the B&W voting because I'm 12000 k's away, and the reality is that the internet backbone just dosn't deliver the images from the US all that fast. The end users connection may at the end of the day have little to do with the speed of delivery. I get roughly the same responce times from DPC here at home, and at work on a dedicated frame relay connection..
As always, just my 2c worth..
Cheers, Chris H.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 02:25:51 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by photom:
I think you are forgetting that a good percentage of DPCers are not in the USA. "Press your local officials in the outback of Australia?"(Sorry Aussies - just trying to make a point.)
Secondarily - I'm sure there's a good possibility that many can not afford the cost of broadband. |
I make $824/month on disability -- broadband? are you kidding?
There is a trick to producing your images in tip-top quality, which will fit in the 150KB size -- simplicity. I take a lot of wildlife pics and because of the busy, busy surroundings in full daylight they never do well compressed. But taken in fog or low-light, then the image is not nearly so complex -- and as I've noticed here in dpc, simple shots very often take the prize. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 04:52:05 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by ajschmidt:
Can we just put this whole issue to rest? |
We don't do that around here.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:06:18 PM · #72 |
One more comment about the availability of broadband or anything besides dial up. There are some of us in modern USA that don't have it. Cable? Doesn't come into our neighborhood. DSL? Too far from the nearest slick. Satellite? I live on the north side of a mountain, and it just isn't possible from a practical standpoint. I promise, we've checked. And right now, after Hurricane Ivan knocked out our phone lines, even our dial up is spotty at best. :-(
Having said that, as far as the innuendo that the couple of us on site council are holding back the change, let it be on record, that if everyone else wanted to increase, I wouldn't stop it. I don't think it is a good idea, but I wouldn't single handedly try to stop it.
Just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:10:06 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by grdSavant:
...here in dpc, simple shots very often take the prize. |
VERY true. If your shot is so complicated that it can't be reasonably compressed to 150Kb, then save yourself a likely low score and don't post it. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 05:24:54 PM · #74 |
Please no larger files than 150kb. I pay for per mb in download and if I just take the b&wII challenge alone, I have to pay about $4 just for voting in that one.
Without considering the cost, I think the size is just good enough and the most quality compressions needed for 640x640 pxl complex photo in jpg doesn't matter for the internet. I like it as it is.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 07:32:41 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by bledford:
Originally posted by MrCaN:
How about accepting png file format. |
This was recommended awhile back, but PNG is a lossless image format, resulting in very large file sizes relative to JPG. We'd end up with the same size images as before, but much greater bandwidth usage/download wait times for not much gain in quality or resolution. |
That's extremely subjective. I like png myself, and it's not too a ton bigger.
Message edited by author 2004-11-17 19:33:17. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 06:59:12 AM EDT.
