| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/04/2005 01:47:46 AM · #1 |
I realize this has been covered before, but after a quick review of the macro entries quite a few suffered detrimental image degradation from compression artifacting.
Few Macro shot exhibit large areas of continuous tone and they often have many different textures, pattern & colors that just don̢۪t compress well. 150k limit just doesn̢۪t cut it anymore.
With my entry I was forced to use aprox 80% quality, which side by side with the original, suffered. I was lucky compared with other entries. Many of the insect shots, especially, show very noticeable image degradation.
Server space is a fraction of what it costs just a few years ago and bandwidth has increased globally (I realize a few are still suck with dial-up, sorry).
Please give us at least 175-200k.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 03:18:07 AM · #2 |
I haven't noticed, but you may be right in that certain types of images may be suffering from the size limit. The size limit is mainly to keep the site friendly to dial-up users, of which there are still quite a few. Since you're not advocating increasing the image dimensions, just the file size, I could go along with it, but it would mean a 20%-30% increase in download times and since most people will submit entries with max allowable parameters, that means a significant amount more time voting in the challenges for dial-up users. That's where you will see the resistance to the idea mainly, IMO.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 05:58:15 AM · #3 |
you are right, it has been discussed before...
150k file limit increase PLEASE
150k limit???
800 pixels photos in Members Challenges.
Time to upgrade image size from 640 to 800
like waves crashing on the beach, it will continue to be discussed, i'm sure ;-) |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 09:03:03 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
I realize this has been covered before, but after a quick review of the macro entries quite a few suffered detrimental image degradation from compression artifacting.
Few Macro shot exhibit large areas of continuous tone and they often have many different textures, pattern & colors that just don̢۪t compress well. 150k limit just doesn̢۪t cut it anymore.
With my entry I was forced to use aprox 80% quality, which side by side with the original, suffered. I was lucky compared with other entries. Many of the insect shots, especially, show very noticeable image degradation.
Server space is a fraction of what it costs just a few years ago and bandwidth has increased globally (I realize a few are still suck with dial-up, sorry).
Please give us at least 175-200k. |
hyperfocal, how about pointing out which entries you are talking about after the voting is finished? Your proposal to increase file size would gain more support if people could see what you are referring to as "very noticeable image degradation". I think most people, including me, don't know what to look for, and therefore don't see it unless it is especially bad.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 10:28:13 AM · #5 |
I have been through most of the Macro V challenge and found that a great percentage of are good to great. I see a big improvement over the past macro challenges as a group. I didn't enter because I really don't have a good macro lens. The only macro lens I have is the canon 50mm f/1.8 II and its a 1:6.66 ratio. I guess I need to get a good macro lens. Just can't afford it right now. But to all that entered congratulations, there are some great photographs in the challenge...
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 10:47:00 AM · #6 |
| If you will use the "Save for Web" feature in Photoshop, that will reduce some of the compression issues. That removes the meta data from the file so you have better picture quality for the file size. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 11:01:34 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
hyperfocal, how about pointing out which entries you are talking about after the voting is finished? Your proposal to increase file size would gain more support if people could see what you are referring to as "very noticeable image degradation". I think most people, including me, don't know what to look for, and therefore don't see it unless it is especially bad. |
I'm all for this idea, as I too am not aware of what to look for. Thanks for the idea Harvey. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 11:08:52 AM · #8 |
Honestly, I've done the test and I know what to look for, and I will state my opinion;
There would be very little perceptual diffrerence even for high-detail shots (like the one in my test) even if uncompressed (or non-lossy-compressed) files were allowed. It would be far more valuable to allow more pixels, but that's another topic. Raising the limit to 175k, or even 200k, would have a nearly imperceptible impact on the perceived quality of submitted shots.
BTW, in the test photos, the file name references, in order, the pixel size, the quality using save-for-web, and the target file size (actual may depart slightly from this).
Edit for typos...
Message edited by author 2005-07-04 13:34:51.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 11:36:12 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Honestly, I've done ]the test and I know what to look for, and I will state my opinion;
There would be very little perceptual diffrerence even for high-detail shots (like the one in my test) even if uncompressed (or non-lossy-compressed) files were allowed. It would be far more valuable to allow more pixels, but that's another topic. Raising the limit to 175k, or even 200k, would have a nearly imperceptible impact on the perceived quality of submitted shots.
BTW, in the test photo, the file name refernces, in order, the pixel size, the quality using save-for-web, and the target file size (actual may depart slightly from this). |
Agreed. The 150k limit is not the primary consideration for quality here, assuming people know how to conform their images to its limitations. Some are not clear on the subject. An increase in dimensions, witht he same file size of 150k would be much more useful to us.
Robt. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 12:09:09 PM · #10 |
I've just finished voting, and it seems to me that I am seeing little, if anything, that could be called "compression artifacts" but a fair amount of oversharpening (presumably because the macro wasn't focused tack-sharp) and this may be what the OP is reacting to? We'll have to see after the challenge is done...
R. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 01:29:08 PM · #11 |
Note than in addition to the series of requests for increased file size, there's also been a recent and marked increase in the number of threads complaining about DPC images being stolen and used illegally.
Our current size has tried to straddle that line between good enough size/quality for the contests, but not so big as to present an even more inviting target for IP thieves.
I agree that a lot of what people attribute to JPEG "artifacts" is actually the result of oversharpening. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 01:35:54 PM · #12 |
I have just made a switch from using PSP to PS because of this very problem I have noticed that resizing in PSP and PS produces such drastic different results and I can reduce the file size without much artifacting. I have always been a fan of PSP for quick and easy editing but it's resizing tool is flawed... I will post an example later.
 
You can clearly see the difference and the larger file should look better because of less compression but it looks worst. Bothe images were from the same file no sharpening or editing jusr resizing.
Message edited by author 2005-07-04 13:48:31. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 02:19:23 PM · #13 |
Huh... That's a big difference, interesting... However, are we talking about "resizing" per se or are we discussing compression after resizing? In other words, can you tell the difference between the two files, in their respective native formats, after reducing to 640 but before applying jpg compression to them, on the screen?
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-07-04 14:19:39. |
|
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: 08/12/2025 03:53:54 AM EDT.
