| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/20/2004 01:20:39 AM · #1 |
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but isn't it about time images are allowed at 800 or even 1024 for the maximum dimension?
Most computer users have larger monitors than in previous years, and digital cameras far exceed those resolutions. I just feel so 'squished' by the 640 file size restriction. What would it take to make this a reality?
Maybe have a preference setting, "reduce images to 640" or similar. . .
Just wondering,
Jadin |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 02:35:29 AM · #2 |
| I'd love to see the dimensions bumped up as well. Being limited to 640 pixels and 150k file size on a photography site is kinda weak. I'm guessing that its all about server space. |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 04:45:50 AM · #3 |
From my site's stat tracking, these are percentages:
54% 1024x768
32% 1600x1200
12% 1280x1024
Which means that over half of my visitors will have to use their browser in full screen mode to see a vertical 640 pixels, and would not be able to fit a 800 pixel vertical image on their screeen at all.
Therefore I would be against this idea.
I'm sure dpc asked for monitor resolution stats when I signed up - those statistics must be around somewhere?
Ed
edit: and if there were an option to view images at 640, we'd have to rely on the auto-resize routine, which I would certainly not want to do.
Message edited by author 2004-06-20 04:46:59.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 04:55:06 AM · #4 |
Nevermind,. I'm a dumbass
Message edited by author 2004-06-20 05:04:49. |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 05:01:31 AM · #5 |
| 800 vertical wont fit on 1024*768 |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 05:02:39 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 05:03:07 AM · #7 |
What about the people on dial-up?
ADSL, cable, multi Mbit corporate connections are not availavble for everyone. Do you want to exclude those people?
If you up the res to 1024x800 and want the same filesize/quality limit as it is now you need to allow 400kb images.
For 800x600 it would be 234kb. That's a meg per 4 photo's (inc. the page itself), not fun at all at 56k or even less.
Message edited by author 2004-06-20 05:05:31.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 05:05:30 AM · #8 |
| Do you really want my answer to that? |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 05:05:53 AM · #9 |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 05:06:24 AM · #10 |
They probably keep the max at 640 so people can't jack a photo to make a print.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 05:09:26 AM · #11 |
It would be really really helpful on the panoramics though
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 06:47:22 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
What about the people on dial-up?
ADSL, cable, multi Mbit corporate connections are not availavble for everyone. Do you want to exclude those people?
If you up the res to 1024x800 and want the same filesize/quality limit as it is now you need to allow 400kb images.
For 800x600 it would be 234kb. That's a meg per 4 photo's (inc. the page itself), not fun at all at 56k or even less. |
I agree... 56k connections and 1024x768 resolutions are the limitations we need to cater for. Web developers all over the world are tied down by this so why is this site different?
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 07:18:51 AM · #13 |
There are two main reasons for the size and dimension limitations:
1 - server bandwidth and storage, since larger files means more diskspace used, and eg doubling the image size would double the bandwidth bill for D&L, both of which would eventually push up the membership fees.
2 - catering for dialup users, as I'm pretty sure no dialup user would want to have to download 300+ 1024x768 images just to vote on one challenge, and a significant proportion of our userbase are still on dialup. Do you really want less votes and comments?
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 09:18:09 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by d14:
It would be really really helpful on the panoramics though |
Except for one thing .... the single image rule pretty much precludes panoramics.
Remembering that dpc attempts to cater to a worldwide audience.....isn't dialup still the majority? |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 10:10:50 AM · #15 |
Yes, it's true that we must address the needs of 1024x768; it's still the dominant display resolution. The advent of affordable LCD displays virtually assures that 1024x768 will continue to be the standard for years to come, since many of the lower cost LCD displays use 1024x768 as their native resolution.
Moving to a larger image size would not necessarily entail significantly larger file sizes. The only files that tax the 150k limit now are shots with very high detail and/or very high noise. You can take an 800x800 image, compress to 150k and not have a high level of compression artifact.
Here's a test I did a while back. I chose an image with very high detail, and compressed it to three file sizes (150k, 165k, 200k) at three image sizes (640x640, 720x720, 800x800). Though the quality setting (noted in the file name) gets very low for 800x800 at 150k, there are only very subtle artifacts. The photo chosen was a crop intended to maximize the area of the photo containing fine, high-contrast detail. The vast majority of shots submitted for challenges are much less busy with the fine detail. In any case, the submittor would have a choice to present at higher size, or higher compression.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 10:20:14 AM · #16 |
| This has been discussed several times in the past, including this thread and this thread. (Probably others as well.) |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 10:58:06 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Havok:
They probably keep the max at 640 so people can't jack a photo to make a print. |
I'm with Havok here, but even the 640's will get snagged up for web page usage.
The other site I use, allows 800x800 I've seen entire collections removed from that site with photographers stating they ran into their pictures being misused on the net. It does and will happen.
Personally I'm not too crazy about the 640 res, If I frame my shot right and only require minimal cropping of my pic I still have a picture that is just under 3264x2448. These do not squeeze down into a 640x640 very nicely. They sometimes fit in 800x800 space with slight jaggies. It does limit what I shot (for this site) or I end up being the cropping king. |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 11:06:09 AM · #18 |
As artists, I'm suprised more people don't feel cramped by the size. . .
On my personal website all photos are now 1280 biggest dimension. The days of 1024 are over for me. |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 11:53:32 AM · #19 |
I can make some pretty amazing quality 4x6 prints from a 640x427 pixel file... especially when you know the source is a 640x427 pixel file. Making available 1280px images would allow for images to be far too easily "ripped" for other purposes. Look at istockphoto... where images sell for 50¢... all you can see is a 270px image, and even THAT has an X and a text watermark through the middle!
Message edited by author 2004-06-20 11:54:14. |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 05:54:29 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Here's a test I did a while back. I chose an image with very high detail, and compressed it to three file sizes (150k, 165k, 200k) at three image sizes (640x640, 720x720, 800x800). Though the quality setting (noted in the file name) gets very low for 800x800 at 150k, there are only very subtle artifacts. |
Well, my main computers screen resolution is still 800x600 32bit calibrated (17" CRT).
Your 800x800 150kb file show significant jpeg degradation. There are jpeg blocks in the sky, large jpeg blocky halos around the trees, halos in the glass, halos around the brown wood in white plaster. It is a pretty low jpeg quality and it definitely shows.
The 800x800 200kb file has the same but far less. It is most significant in the sky. The glass and the wood look much better and overal detail comes out slightly better.
Even the 640x640 @140k still shows it a bit, especially around the trees.
Message edited by author 2004-06-20 17:55:58.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 06:44:11 PM · #21 |
| I see no problem with a 150k limit but with any dimensions you like up to a max 1024px on any one side. Why not? The current format rules out panoramas for a start. |
|
|
|
06/26/2004 09:56:42 AM · #22 |
I have several panoramas in my portfolio, none of which were taken or submitted for any challenges but included as it is my primary focus and style of photography. I've had many comments from other users wishing my images were larger and I feel the same way. I've had to redirect them to my photobucket gallery so they could view my photos at larger resolutions.
I say keep the 150kb max rule but lift the resolution limit. A file weighing in at 150kb at 100x60 px still downloads at the same speed as a 3000x1500px image at 150kb.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2004 12:45:49 PM · #23 |
My computer is set to randomly select from all My Pictures and show them at full screen size when it goes into screen saver mode. I am often pleasantly surprised at how much better my images look when shown this way, even some that I consider average, or borderline throwaway, will catch my eye. And I am still haven't come up with a really good idea of what type of images look best when reduced to challenge size.
That said, anything much larger than the present 640 pixels in height is going to make it so that most voters cannot see the entire image on their screen all at the same time. Any increase in height would cause the quality of the voter's views to go down as some would not bother to scroll, and the amount of images being ripped would undoubtedly go up. I'm not real pleased with the current size limit but don't think an increase is practical.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2004 01:28:33 PM · #24 |
What If we were to allow over 640 on one side if we cut down the otherside? (like panoramics) Say we go 800px wide but only 510px tall, and so forth...
640x640 = 409,600 total pixels
800x510 = 408,000
1024x400= 409,600
This would still keep the bandwidth down by keeping the same 150k limit, but it would give much more control over the image size and crop. |
|
|
|
06/26/2004 01:48:44 PM · #25 |
The biggest problem is that 1024x768 is the most popular screen resolution of people browsing the internet. Even with their browser maximized, a 640px high image doesn't fit without a little bit of scrolling. Imagine the amount of horizontal and vertical scrolling that these voters would have to do in order to try and see the entire picture if the size limits were increased. It is likely that some wouldn't even bother, and would just click a number based on whatever portion of the image happens to show up on their screen by "default".
Plus, I personally have an issue with potentially being "forced" to submit a larger photo. Because we cannot watermark our entries with a copyright, it is entirely too easy for people to "steal" an image. As it is, a 640x427px image can already make a very nice 4x6 print thanks to the advanced interpolation algorithms that exist. If the size limit is increased to allow images that are 800 or 1000 pixels, folks who choose to continue to submit 640px images will likely get "dinged" for having photos that are "too small", just like the small 300-400px images do today.
(and as I've stated in an earlier post, this has already been discussed many times in the forums.)
Message edited by author 2004-06-26 13:50:02. |
|
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: 08/19/2025 04:15:48 AM EDT.
