| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/18/2008 08:24:04 PM · #1 |
| Are we ready to have larger sized images in ALL challenges yet? I am. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 08:27:25 PM · #2 |
I'm hoping for...
720 pixels with a 200kb file size in the open challenges
and 800 pixels at 350kb file size in member challenges I think this would work best. Not a huge site stress but still vastly better.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 08:36:04 PM · #3 |
While we're at it (beating dead horses), I'm hoping for some cool DPC gear like camera straps, hats, T-shirts, etc. Huge money making opportunity & I can't understand why Langdon isn't moving on this....
The money to be made could easily pay for the extra server space needed for the larger photo file sizes (yeah...that's it...)
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 08:39:00 PM · #4 |
| I am sure Langdon is too busy with his day job, plus administering this web site, to have time to deal with a retail business and all it would entail. Lets let the poor man have time to sleep ;-) |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 08:41:15 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
I am sure Langdon is too busy with his day job, plus administering this web site, to have time to deal with a retail business and all it would entail. Lets let the poor man have time to sleep ;-) |
I thought this was Langdon's day job.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2008 09:03:12 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Originally posted by BAMartin:
I am sure Langdon is too busy with his day job, plus administering this web site, to have time to deal with a retail business and all it would entail. Lets let the poor man have time to sleep ;-) |
I thought this was Langdon's day job. |
Nope |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 09:54:38 PM · #7 |
| I somehow doubt my $2.08 a month pays much of his bills. |
|
|
|
07/18/2008 09:58:48 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by yospiff:
I somehow doubt my $2.08 a month pays much of his bills. |
2.08*2000...you could do worse. |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 01:01:38 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by bfox2:
Originally posted by yospiff:
I somehow doubt my $2.08 a month pays much of his bills. |
2.08*2000...you could do worse. |
True. While this site has brought vast amounts of enjoyment to me, I am gonna hold on to my $2 until there are some significant improvements. Some days is seems that the site is being overlooked. We've been asking for resolution increases for a long while now...nothing. Many have begged for the next round of the DPL...nothing. I think we are falling behind, and I hate that. |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 01:27:19 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
We've been asking for resolution increases for a long while now...nothing. |
Can you please clarify?
Member's went up to 720. While it may not be as much as you want, it isn't "nothing."
As far as dpl, that has been explained, a couple of times. |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 01:43:49 AM · #11 |
Lol yeah dpl has been beat to death lol...
I've only been a full member for 6 months so I've always had 720 pixels. I really don't mind it to much on member challenges but I think 640 pixels is a little small. The reason I say that is because my monitors native resolution is like 1680x1050. So it seems obvious to up the resolution right?
Well yes and no...
Here is the problem.... the common monitor size has been growing but there are still a lot people with 17 inch monitors. Can you guess what their native resolution is? 1024x720... See why we haven't gone any higher? Well it's because the images wouldn't fit on their screens. At first I though it would be just inconveniant for them but what about people keyboard voting flying through the images voting mine down because the screen "crops" my image
Now in a few years I suspect the 17 inch monitors will die off and 19 inch will be the usual. Which would make the native resolution 1280x1024. At that point we could upgrade to 720 pixels for open challenges and 800+ for member challenges.
Of course I'm not on the site counsel or anything but that is my thinking on the matter... |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 01:44:04 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
We've been asking for resolution increases for a long while now...nothing. |
Can you please clarify?
Member's went up to 720. While it may not be as much as you want, it isn't "nothing."
As far as dpl, that has been explained, a couple of times. |
The dead horse is still dead apparently ;)
|
|
|
|
07/22/2008 02:35:21 AM · #13 |
In the past I'v always been whining for 800px, a pretty common standard on the net. After a couple of years we got a compromise with 720px. It came late and it was half an increase.
Now I even prefer 1000px, like a German pay-site has where I am a member, altough 800px would be workable too. Would mean that you don't have to seperately prepare a 720px pic for DPC.
But hey, the site still works as it is and asking for more size only works one time every four years or so. So by 2010 we will be at 800px.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2008 02:57:46 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
In the past I'v always been whining for 800px, a pretty common standard on the net. |
I guess ´pretty standard´ depends on the sites one visits. 640 seems pretty standard to me. My online portfolio has a height limit of 570, to acommodate laptop users without having to scroll to see a picture.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2008 03:35:41 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Camabs:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
In the past I'v always been whining for 800px, a pretty common standard on the net. |
I guess ´pretty standard´ depends on the sites one visits. |
Photo.net - 1024px widest
fotocommunity.de - 1000px widest 400kb
photosight.ru - 800px widest 150kb
trekearth.com - 800px widest 200kb
Where I do not come anymore
Photosig: wxl =640000 so 1000x640 is possible
I can't remember a site with smaller pics. And if they have, I am not interested. The pics on usefilm.com are sometimes great but incredibly irritating small.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2008 05:54:40 AM · #16 |
I guess it would be nice to see something similar to smugmug where you have the option to view the picture in small - medium - large - Original sizes.
Put an option box in our HOME > Preference area and you can set what size you want to view the entries, from 800x , 720x, 640x, or Original for the times that the photograph enters a smaller than normal picture. It doesn't seem to skew the photos on smugmug when it downsizes them for smaller view.
Just my opinion
|
|
|
|
07/22/2008 09:21:02 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
... While this site has brought vast amounts of enjoyment to me, I am gonna hold on to my $2 until there are some significant improvements. ... |
Really? DPC brings "vast amounts of enjoyment" to you and others. It's complex yet consistently runs smoothly. One of the best things about it is that photos load incredibly fast -- I'd hate to see that aspect change even a little bit!
Anyway, as Patrick pointed out, some of us have monitors and resolutions that result in photos being too large for our screens. On my main PC I have to scroll to see the bottom of a 720px photo in portrait orientation. On my office laptop, images appear smaller so that's not a problem (however, 640px images are indeed quite small there). |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 01:44:29 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by citymars:
...some of us have monitors and resolutions that result in photos being too large for our screens. |
But MOST of us do not, as has been demonstrated in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll asking if we wanted the resolution increased. So, give us an overall increase. That's the solution. Most other photo sites also load quickly. That's the joy of broadband.
Yeah, karmat, we did get the members challenge up to 720...still behind almost every other photo site's basic minimums. I guess I should have said "almost nothing." Thanks for helping me understand the error of my ways. I want to see the site continue to advance, and I want to stay a part of it. However, when I think that my member fees no longer help the site grow, I stop paying. I overlooked it at last year's renewal in hopes that it would be addressed. It was not. I can't overlook it anymore, that's all. |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 02:08:54 PM · #19 |
| and that is your perogative. |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 02:21:03 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by citymars:
One of the best things about it is that photos load incredibly fast -- I'd hate to see that aspect change even a little bit! |
I'm pretty sure  Karmat and  NikonJeb share your sentiment since neither apparently have broadband available where they live. Now THAT'S dedication! |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 02:44:13 PM · #21 |
Here's some truthing to the claims about screen size.
My 20" monitor is set to 1024 x 768 (not 1024x720). We like it that way. What I don't like is having to scroll to see vertical images 720 high. But forget that. I have to scroll to see images 640 high.
Remember that you have window edges, menus, maybe a toolbar or two, the tab bar, plus the status bar at the bottom and the task bar (Windows at the bottom usually, Mac at the top). I have only one toolbar, actually, but even disabling that, I still have to scroll to see images 640 high unless I go to full screen mode.
And let's not forget the DPC header bar and the score bar on voting pages.
When all is said and done, I see 471 pixels vertically when a voting page comes up:
The pic I chose at random is only 512 high, and I don't even see all of that without scrolling.
So even if I went to 1280x960 (not 1280x1024 if you're keeping a 4:3 ratio), I'd get up to 663 pixels vertically in the actual page itself, which is just barely enough to see a full 640 pixel high image, and nowhere near 720 or 800.
Message edited by author 2008-07-22 14:44:33.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2008 02:48:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by citymars:
...some of us have monitors and resolutions that result in photos being too large for our screens. |
But MOST of us do not, as has been demonstrated in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll asking if we wanted the resolution increased. ... |
The last two polls that ran on this subject don't really indicate a strong majority wanted an increase.
Last poll, and the one before that.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2008 03:01:05 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by citymars:
One of the best things about it is that photos load incredibly fast -- I'd hate to see that aspect change even a little bit! |
I'm pretty sure Karmat and NikonJeb share your sentiment since neither apparently have broadband available where they live. Now THAT'S dedication! |
Actually, we got satellite a few weeks ago. NO MORE DIALUP!
It makes a huge difference. I'm surprised I stayed with dpc as long as I did.
So, NikonJeb is all by himself, but he forever has my sympathy. |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 03:09:08 PM · #24 |
| Yeah I was going to say that there really isn't any excuse for speed due to location anymore. Sat. internet solved that awhile ago. Glad to hear you have enter that faster world! I used to have dial up.... shudder... |
|
|
|
07/22/2008 03:13:13 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by citymars:
...some of us have monitors and resolutions that result in photos being too large for our screens. |
But MOST of us do not, as has been demonstrated in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll asking if we wanted the resolution increased. ... |
The last two polls that ran on this subject don't really indicate a strong majority wanted an increase.
Last poll, and the one before that. |
Without doing the math, at a glance the last poll appears to show over 85% of respondants did in fact want an increase. That's a strong majority. |
|
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 01:31:06 PM EDT.
