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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Let's leave it like it is....
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 233, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/14/2005 09:32:43 PM · #126
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by mk:

Haha, that was my story. And I just got my computer last year and it still doesn't do more than 1024. :(


Okay wow, that's cool I guess. I just thought that all PC's/Macs sold in the last 2-3 years would do better than that. My presumption is wrong I guess. :P


While you're right with CRT's, most consumer LCD flat-panels are limited to 1024x768. Many notebook computers are as well. The popularity of the 1024x768 flat panels mean that resolution is actually INCREASING its hold as the most popular web-viewing resolution.

~Terry
 12/14/2005 09:33:17 PM · #127
Originally posted by megatherian:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by megatherian:

... and if the same problem is brought up again it just means it was never properly addressed.


No, usually it means that the person bringing it up for the umpteenth time never bothered to look at the discussions that went on before. So then the same discussions happen over and over.


Another way of looking at it is that the person brought up a problem and though they may not have the correct solution the problem remains the same. Often times the solution is argued over and over again without either side really looking at the problem.

When I say the problem was not properly addressed I mean just that. Just because it was decided the person's solution would not work does not mean the actual problem was addressed. I believe often times people start threads that address a problem not because they didn't like the result of the last discussion but because the problem was never properly addressed and a new idea is brought forth. Rather than really seeing the problem and listening to the new suggested solution though many people just dismiss it blanketly and say the issue has already been discussed.

With that said I know I am speaking in some generalities too. I understand that many people do not see the threads brought up as problems - but at least one person does. Rather than bash them for speaking up we should be encouraging them to share their opinion and trying to think of solutions that will make this place better for everyone - whether their solution will work or not.


Yes, but new solutions rarely get proposed. It's the same old unacceptable solutions that have been rehashed 72 kazillion times.

If the discussion of an issue at least tries to start with some kind of summary of all the crap that was proposed before, it would not be such a colossal waste of time spent re-inventing the wheel.
 12/14/2005 09:35:23 PM · #128
Originally posted by A1275:
I bought my laptop 3 months ago, and it runs 1024x768.

Frankly, this post appears to be "elitist" in its entirety. Please remember that the site does not revolve around the luckiest minority who can afford high speed Internet connections (or even have it available to them) and super-duper giant monitors. My laptop was expensive indeed, and I'm not about to sink more $ into a desktop system so I can have the fancy monitor you think I should have.

One of the great things about DPC is the sense of community, the "looking out" for fellow members (see the Christmas wishlist thread, of which I believe quite a few, including you, were a recipient of some generosity). Surely you aren't accepting a hand-out in one thread, and then denigrating those less fortunate than you in another? What if someone had said to YOU: "sucks to be him - he can't figure out a simple website even with all his fancy computer equipment...."


To this point this has been a relatively productive discussion, and I'd like to keep it that way. With that interest in mind, let's all do our best to keep the focus on the issues. Feel free to refute any points you don't agree with, but let's please avoid attacking the individual.

Thanks,
Terry

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 21:47:20.
 12/14/2005 09:39:48 PM · #129
A vast number of newer laptops stilll ship with 1024x768 screens, and may lower-cost LCD monitors also run that resolution. Even though I personally run a much higher resolution at home, I'm stuck with 1280x1024 at work (and 1024x768 on the laptop screen itself, this on a brand new IBM T42). The prevalence of this screen resolution makes it imperative that we accommodate it when considering any changes to the site.
 12/14/2005 09:40:49 PM · #130
Wow, this post got dropped like a lead weight. ;^) Oh well, off to bed - g'night!

Originally posted by glad2badad:
No. That can't be right. The image on the left contains the same data left to right as the larger image, but not the same length-wise. They're different. The one on the left is more compressed width-wise because of this.

Compare the new one (512 x 427) on the left to the original larger (640 x 532) one. Both now have an aspect ratio of 1.20.



edit to add - you need to pull each image up in a separate window to see the difference as the thumbnails are the same size.

12/14/2005 09:50:31 PM · #131
An old test of mine, looking at this same issue:

//www.pbase.com/kirbic/compression_samples

The gallery linked above contains several different versions of an image that I chose for the same reasons Row_Bear chose his; areas of high detail and areas of very smooth color. Artifacts show up first in these types of images, normally in the smooth areas along the edges of the detail. My conclusion when I ran this test is that 800px trumps 640px every time in perceived image quality, even if it has to be compressed to the same file size. My test was absolutely brutal, the highest compression rate, 800x800 compressed to 150kB, resulted in a JPEG quality of 19 (!!)
 12/14/2005 09:50:40 PM · #132
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:


Any suggestions on replacing the screen for this computer?

I'm currently on a Toshiba Satellite notebook.

~Terry


Get an external monitor and a real keyboard and mouse?

Honestly, I can't understand how you guys edit photos with such small resolutions at hand, I can barely fit a pic a with all the Photoshop toolbars in with 1152x864, I usually up the res to 1280 when my wife isn't looking :O)
 12/14/2005 09:55:45 PM · #133
Imma dig out my Mac SE and 300 baud modem, then vote on challenges and bitch about how bad the images look.
 12/14/2005 09:56:30 PM · #134
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:


Any suggestions on replacing the screen for this computer?

I'm currently on a Toshiba Satellite notebook.

~Terry


Get an external monitor and a real keyboard and mouse?

Honestly, I can't understand how you guys edit photos with such small resolutions at hand, I can barely fit a pic a with all the Photoshop toolbars in with 1152x864, I usually up the res to 1280 when my wife isn't looking :O)


My solution for my work laptop was to set up an LCD monitor (1280x1024 resolution) as an external monitor, then expanded my desktop to the second monitor, so they act as one desktop space. I can now put different apps on different screens, and drag stuff between as needed. I can also put the GIMP (the photo editor I'm using at work these days) on the larger screen, but put the toolbars on the small screen. Works like a charm.
I could really never edit extensively on a 1024x768 screen either, it is just a royal pain.
 12/14/2005 09:56:59 PM · #135
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:


Any suggestions on replacing the screen for this computer?

I'm currently on a Toshiba Satellite notebook.

~Terry


Get an external monitor and a real keyboard and mouse?

Honestly, I can't understand how you guys edit photos with such small resolutions at hand, I can barely fit a pic a with all the Photoshop toolbars in with 1152x864, I usually up the res to 1280 when my wife isn't looking :O)


you gonna buy everyone new hardware for Christmas????

people just cant go out and get new stuff to make YOU happy

James
 12/14/2005 09:58:07 PM · #136
my earlier post goes right along with this one

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Wow, this post got dropped like a lead weight. ;^) Oh well, off to bed - g'night!

Originally posted by glad2badad:
No. That can't be right. The image on the left contains the same data left to right as the larger image, but not the same length-wise. They're different. The one on the left is more compressed width-wise because of this.

Compare the new one (512 x 427) on the left to the original larger (640 x 532) one. Both now have an aspect ratio of 1.20.



edit to add - you need to pull each image up in a separate window to see the difference as the thumbnails are the same size.


Originally posted by jab119:
if images are allowed to go up to 800xwhat ever, then people will complain that their images are not the best they can be because of the 150K file size limit.

a new debate will rage through the forums about I need more file size because my 800xwhat ever image looks like crap because im forced to reduce the quality of it down to 68.2% to meet the 150K file limit.

its going to be a never ending battle.

People just cant seem to understand it cost money to run this site. to allow larger file sizes to match the larger image sizes will greatly increase the bandwidth needed to run the site.

$25 per paying member, will this go up to $30 or $35 a year

google ads for those that are not payed members to help with the cost of running the site. Im Glad I dont have to see UGLY unwanted ads

whats next???? everyone gets to see UGLY ads on this site.

James
12/14/2005 09:58:08 PM · #137
Originally posted by A1275:
I bought my laptop 3 months ago, and it runs 1024x768.


That is more than sufficient to view 800x600 pics :)
 12/14/2005 09:58:15 PM · #138
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by mk:
I just got my computer last year and it still doesn't do more than 1024. :(


Time to upgrade that video card? ;)
Or get a higher definition monitor.
Go ask santa :p


Any suggestions on replacing the screen for this computer?

I'm currently on a Toshiba Satellite notebook.

~Terry


For my work laptop, I have a docking station, external keyboard and mouse with a 19" CRT. The laptop screen on it is a joke.
 12/14/2005 09:59:28 PM · #139
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by A1275:
I bought my laptop 3 months ago, and it runs 1024x768.


That is more than sufficient to view 800x600 pics :)


What about 600 x 800 and what about the space the browser window takes up?
 12/14/2005 10:04:37 PM · #140
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by A1275:
I bought my laptop 3 months ago, and it runs 1024x768.


That is more than sufficient to view 800x600 pics :)


What about 600 x 800 and what about the space the browser window takes up?


get one of those monitors like Art has :p swivel baby!
 12/14/2005 10:07:36 PM · #141
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by A1275:
I bought my laptop 3 months ago, and it runs 1024x768.


That is more than sufficient to view 800x600 pics :)


What about 600 x 800 and what about the space the browser window takes up?


get one of those monitors like Art has :p swivel baby!


Who's got the bottomless wallet that's going to pay for everyone's hardware upgrade that a few people keep insisting on?
 12/14/2005 10:08:14 PM · #142
Originally posted by A1275:
I bought my laptop 3 months ago, and it runs 1024x768.

Frankly, this post appears to be "elitist" in its entirety. Please remember that the site does not revolve around the luckiest minority who can afford high speed Internet connections (or even have it available to them) and super-duper giant monitors. My laptop was expensive indeed, and I'm not about to sink more $ into a desktop system so I can have the fancy monitor you think I should have.

One of the great things about DPC is the sense of community, the "looking out" for fellow members (see the Christmas wishlist thread, of which I believe quite a few, including you, were a recipient of some generosity). Surely you aren't accepting a hand-out in one thread, and then denigrating those less fortunate than you in another? What if someone had said to YOU: "sucks to be him - he can't figure out a simple website even with all his fancy computer equipment...."


I guess you might understand how I, with my not-so-rich (at all) status, might be a little confused that people don't even have as "high performing" crap as my current hand-me-down crap. (okay, the monitor was a birthday present, that aside, and it's only a 17 inch anyways)

My assumption (I see a "you know what they say about assume.." coming my way) was that we're dealing with a small percentage of people here. Apparently I'm wrong. Whatever, that's fine.

Your point is valid about the "generostiy" issue, but like I said, at some point the bubble will break, and you'll have people leaving because the site can no longer change. It's not about denigrating those that have less or whatever, sorry you feel that way. It's about progress.
12/14/2005 10:10:10 PM · #143
Noone said anything about never changing. When the situation is different and it makes good business sense, the site will change.
 12/14/2005 10:10:18 PM · #144
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Who's got the bottomless wallet that's going to pay for everyone's hardware upgrade that a few people keep insisting on?


Dont you believe in Santa? :) cheers
 12/14/2005 10:10:49 PM · #145
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Who's got the bottomless wallet that's going to pay for everyone's hardware upgrade that a few people keep insisting on?


Dont you believe in Santa? :) cheers


... and money grows on trees.
 12/14/2005 10:11:22 PM · #146
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Imma dig out my Mac SE and 300 baud modem, then vote on challenges and bitch about how bad the images look.

Hey, if I fire up mine too we can IM each other at 3 WPM!
 12/14/2005 10:11:35 PM · #147
Around here Santa is overworked, underpaid, and has waaayyy too many financial obligations...
 12/14/2005 10:12:42 PM · #148
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by A1275:
I bought my laptop 3 months ago, and it runs 1024x768.


That is more than sufficient to view 800x600 pics :)

But not 600x800, or do we abandon the portrait format?
 12/14/2005 10:13:17 PM · #149
Anybody who is using a laptop to serious photo editing is crazy. I just bought a used 19" lacie for $250. That's for a high end CRT, imagine what kind of deals are out there so people can connect their laptops to a decent sceen.
 12/14/2005 10:13:37 PM · #150
Originally posted by wavelength:

I guess you might understand how I, with my not-so-rich (at all) status, might be a little confused that people don't even have as "high performing" crap as my current hand-me-down crap. (okay, the monitor was a birthday present, that aside, and it's only a 17 inch anyways)

My assumption (I see a "you know what they say about assume.." coming my way) was that we're dealing with a small percentage of people here. Apparently I'm wrong. Whatever, that's fine.



Wavelength, you were much more gracious in your repsonse than I was. I should not have worded that so rudely - I'm sorry.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:16:06 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/03/2025 05:16:06 PM EDT.