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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Time to upgrade image size from 640 to 800
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 168, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/26/2004 12:33:40 AM · #26
Here is perhaps one of the most important statements made in this thread yet:
"We've also already had some problems with photos being "stolen" and mis-used, and increasing the dimensions will make such activity both more attractive and more effective."

640x 640/480 at 150K is a good size to keep them from being stolen. Not very well printable, nor great wallpapers at that size.
I really don't think that the majority of users have T1's, monster-sized monitors, but rather are dialup users or basic DSL/cable. Keeping bandwidth friendly to all is really the best way IMO. Imagine dialup users trying to vote on 300-400 images at 800x600 @200K - you think voting turn out is poor now!
?
 10/26/2004 12:42:30 AM · #27
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by Maverick:
Originally posted by AmiYuy:

Squinting? I only had to squint when I tried to put my old computer on 1024x768 when the monitor couldn't handle it so I had to go back to 800x600. I love my 1024x768 laptop screen though...

I have been a serious user for awhile and only in the past two months did I get a computer capable of larger resolutions.



My computer is capable of up to 1600x1200. I have a 19" monitor. 1024x768 with a refresh of 120 Hz is as high res as I can comfortably view for reading text, etc. Too much eye strain at higher resolutions. Again, could be just me.


I presume you know that you can set a higher resolution, and then change the size of the default system font and sizes of items such as system tray. That way, you are using a higher res, but the text is the same size you like.


Yes, and it didn't do squat as ClubJuggle mentioned.

I wear glasses/contacts and with them have perfect vision and young eyes...if mine are strained then imagine the fit my parents would have thrown if I'd left it at that size.
 10/26/2004 12:55:20 AM · #28
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Do you know what the bandwith requirements are for a site of this size?


It would be curious to find out... Just out of pure professional curiosity.

And speaking of images, most 800x600 images and then some can fit in the existing limits easily, so why not allow that? That wouldn't impact resources in any way, but would make things a lot more convenient for a lot of people.
 10/26/2004 12:59:01 AM · #29
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by skylen:
It would be up to the photographer whether or not to actually choose to submit a higher-resolution photo. No one is forcing them to.


And we all know how well sub-maximum picture sizes do in the voting...


That doesn't mean they don't have a choice.

I personally have moved to the new standard for my website and general usage. My reasoning is theifs will be theifs regardless of what I do. But I'm not going to punish the marjority of my site visitors just because of a few bad apples. I find the pictures at 800 pixels represent the printed form much MUCH better than 640. It's not a ton of extra pixels, but it sure seems to make a difference. This means more people will be able to see what the photos will look like printed, and will hopefully lead to more sales.

I can't begin to describe how big of a difference those extra 160 pixels really make.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 01:00:06.
 10/26/2004 01:06:30 AM · #30
Originally posted by jadin:
But I'm not going to punish the marjority of my site visitors just because of a few bad apples.


So the majority of visitors to your site are browsing at larger than 1024x768 then ?
 10/26/2004 01:11:40 AM · #31
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Do you know what the bandwith requirements are for a site of this size?


It would be curious to find out... Just out of pure professional curiosity.

And speaking of images, most 800x600 images and then some can fit in the existing limits easily, so why not allow that? That wouldn't impact resources in any way, but would make things a lot more convenient for a lot of people.


A 600x800 image does not fit in a 1024x768 frame... 800 is greater than 768.

-Terry
 10/26/2004 01:18:06 AM · #32
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
We could go to a max size of 800 pixels on the long side and keep the max file size at 150k though. Most images will display fine at 800 pixels and 150k.

Some of the proponents of this should post images for comparison; the same original sized to both 640 and 800, and saved under 150k.

I suspect that any gain in resolution will be more than offset by the increase in JPEG artifacts.

Go to a larger file size and you exacerbate storage/bandwidth/theft problems.
 10/26/2004 01:23:23 AM · #33
I keep seeing over and over throughout this thread "the majority of users here can't display 800x600 without scrolling". How do the people that can't display and 800x600 picture work on photos from your cameras? Do you all work up your shots at res's lower than 1024? If reading is an issue (I use readers myself) go to 1024 or 1280 and turn large fonts on in windows, the pictures will be nicer and you can still read the Windows Menus and Icons and stuff.

Right Click a blank area of your desktop, choose properties, click the Appearance tab, Select Large or Extra Large Fonts from the Font Size drop-down menu.

I just don't see how a majority of photographers are working there craft at 800x600. My pics are 3264x2448 I would be panning all over the place to get any detail work done.

I raise my hand for 800 longest side @ 350k.
 10/26/2004 01:27:48 AM · #34
Originally posted by awpollard:
I keep seeing over and over throughout this thread "the majority of users here can't display 800x600 without scrolling". How do the people that can't display and 800x600 picture work on photos from your cameras? Do you all work up your shots at res's lower than 1024?


I zoom out for the bulk of it. My images are 3072x2048 so I have to do that anyway. For detail work, I do a section at a time.

Originally posted by awpollard:
If reading is an issue (I use readers myself) go to 1024 or 1280 and turn large fonts on in windows, the pictures will be nicer and you can still read the Windows Menus and Icons and stuff.

Right Click a blank area of your desktop, choose properties, click the Appearance tab, Select Large or Extra Large Fonts from the Font Size drop-down menu.


I know frome experience that many programs do not work properly with Large Fonts enabled -- for example, dialog boxes where not all the content is visible.

Originally posted by awpollard:
I just don't see how a majority of photographers are working there craft at 800x600. My pics are 3264x2448 I would be panning all over the place to get any detail work done.

I raise my hand for 800 longest side @ 350k.


At 1024x768, a 600x800 image still will not fit. 800 is larger than 768.

-Terry
 10/26/2004 01:28:28 AM · #35
I do any detail work at 100% resolution - anything else is practically a waste of time as you are looking at an interpolated version. I change resolution up and down to suit what I'm doing.

and yes, I pan all over the place, that's what the locator tool and space bar are for :) I'm editing normally at 1280x1024, which is still a lot lower resolution then the files I'm working with.

I don't do any editing work at web resolutions, so I'd never have the full image on screen for detail work. Colour correction yes, but you could do that at a lower resolution as well.
 10/26/2004 02:38:11 AM · #36
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

A 600x800 image does not fit in a 1024x768 frame... 800 is greater than 768.

-Terry


Has been mentioned a few times now. But Jmsetzler's statement on this seems to be ignored (see first page of this thread)

If 800 wide is allowed, and 600 high, then there is a good fill of the screen and no scrolling for most people. And it is easy to still keep it within 150 K limit.

Which makes all the discussion about bandwith, storage and resolution pointless.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 02:41:07.
 10/26/2004 02:44:28 AM · #37
Originally posted by willem:
If 800 wide is allowed, and 600 high, then there is a good fill of the screen and no scrolling for most people. And it is easy to still keep it within 150 K limit.

Which makes all the discussion about bandwith, storage and resolution pointless.


600 wide and 800 high, however, becomes a problem.

-Terry
 10/26/2004 02:46:29 AM · #38
I agree with John,I now keep all my Pbase images at or below 150k and 800 pixels and see no problem.

example

edit: my, you are quick Terry.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 02:47:54.
 10/26/2004 02:48:21 AM · #39
And then what about people that want to post a square image.. you'd have 800x800, or you'd force them to go 640x640 and they'd be voted down because of a "smaller" size.. (it's not fair, but that's the way DPC is.)

I'd feel sorry for the dial-up users, and there *are* enough of them. They have a tough enough time with 640.

I just don't personally see a reason for it. We've been fine with 640 for 3 years, and we'll be fine for another 3.
It just doesn't make any *real* sense to increase the sizes right now
 10/26/2004 02:52:23 AM · #40
Was there a poll in the past about what screen resolution people use? If not, maybe it could provide some useful feedback for this discussion.

Question: What screen resolution do you use on the system you use most for visting DPChallenge?

1. 640x480
2. 800x600
3. 1024x768
4. 1280x960
5. 1280x1024
6. 1600x1200
7. Larger than 1600x1200

10/26/2004 02:52:36 AM · #41
Originally posted by BradP:

640x 640/480 at 150K is a good size to keep them from being stolen. Not very well printable, nor great wallpapers at that size.
I really don't think that the majority of users have T1's, monster-sized monitors, but rather are dialup users or basic DSL/cable. Keeping bandwidth friendly to all is really the best way IMO. Imagine dialup users trying to vote on 300-400 images at 800x600 @200K - you think voting turn out is poor now!
?


The suggestion was to keep the 150K limit so the only impact would be to those running at lower resolutions.

Though by increasing the number of pixels without increasing the file size will introduce more compression artifacts in images with alot of detail. A lot of my images (640 x 427) are at around 65-70% quality to keep them under 150K. Increasing the size could very possibly decrease this to about 50% or less.

Originally posted by BradP:
Here is perhaps one of the most important statements made in this thread yet:
"We've also already had some problems with photos being "stolen" and mis-used, and increasing the dimensions will make such activity both more attractive and more effective."


I have to agree with this and would vote to keep the existing size restriction.
 10/26/2004 03:02:43 AM · #42
Some interesting statistics... a user posted some statistics of users hitting his Web site in this thread on 21 February:

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Screen resolutions of visitors to my site this year. 800x600 is the second most popular resolution...

Resolution Unique Visitors % of Unique Visitors

1024 x 768 2476 49.21%

800 x 600 1804 35.85%

1280 x 1024 269 5.34%

1152 x 864 217 4.31%

640 x 480 49 0.97%

Unknown 48 0.95%

1600 x 1200 46 0.91%

1280 x 960 35 0.69%

1400 x 1050 21 0.41%

1152 x 870 12 0.23%

1280 x 768 7 0.13%

960 x 720 7 0.13%

2560 x 1024 6 0.11%

560 x 420 4 0.07%

1280 x 854 4 0.07%

1440 x 900 4 0.07%

1280 x 720 3 0.05%

1280 x 800 3 0.05%

1680 x 1050 2 0.03%

998 x 701 2 0.03%

2048 x 768 2 0.03%

1600 x 1024 1 0.01%

2304 x 864 1 0.01%

800 x 581 1 0.01%

2048 x 1536 1 0.01%

1152 x 768 1 0.01%

800 x 552 1 0.01%

832 x 624 1 0.01%

1016 x 740 1 0.01%

720 x 576 1 0.01%

1016 x 712 1 0.01%


From this, I think we can safely assume that roughly 1/3 of our users are running at less than 1024x768.

-Terry
 10/26/2004 03:04:42 AM · #43
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

From this, I think we can safely assume that roughly 1/3 of our users are running at less than 1024x768.

-Terry


Those are pretty similar to the numbers I posted earlier - they show that about 10% of the users could see 800 pixel high images, leaving about 90% of voters having to scroll to vote on portrait orientation images.
 10/26/2004 03:49:06 AM · #44
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by willem:
If 800 wide is allowed, and 600 high, then there is a good fill of the screen and no scrolling for most people. And it is easy to still keep it within 150 K limit.

Which makes all the discussion about bandwith, storage and resolution pointless.


600 wide and 800 high, however, becomes a problem.

-Terry


I fully agree 800 high does not fit on a 768 high screen. Agreed. Period.

You have made your point now several times. Maybe you should switch from focussing at the problems and the continued effort to be right, to focussing on the possibilites and be open for suggestions.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 03:54:21.
 10/26/2004 04:04:40 AM · #45
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
January 11th 2005 (less than 3 months away) will mark DPC's second aniversary (well, actually, at least dpchallenge.com's registration date). DPC sure has grown fast, especially the past year. I think it's time DPC evolves forward by raising the image size to at least 800 pixels to promote photography properly. Some of the images proposed here are simply too beautiful to be viewed at a mediocre 640 pixels.

At least make it a feature in the members challenges.

My personal request.
Thanks for listening, and for a great site.

DrJOnes


Cool, I share my birthday with DPC - can I have a free ribbon? :)

I run at 1280 x 1024 on my desktop but rarely run IE full screen, the boss might see ;)

I agree with Terry that 800 x 600 is fine if you only view landscape oriented images but portrait will not fit unless you resize to 600 x 400, no gain at all.

But what the heck, give the voters another reason for marking down, I'll wait for the first comments of 'image too big' and 'image too small' to be left!
 10/26/2004 04:06:58 AM · #46
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
January 11th 2005 (less than 3 months away) will mark DPC's second aniversary (well, actually, at least dpchallenge.com's registration date).

DPC started on 11th Jan 2002, which would make this the 3rd anniversary... :o)
 10/26/2004 04:07:31 AM · #47
I think the idea was to have a maximum width of 800 and maximum height of 600 or the current 640. So the size change would only be of benefit (if you call it that) to landscape oriented images.
 10/26/2004 04:31:12 AM · #48
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I think the idea was to have a maximum width of 800 and maximum height of 600 or the current 640. So the size change would only be of benefit (if you call it that) to landscape oriented images.


What's wrong with maximum size of 700 pixels? This increases effective are by 20%, which is quite much. Worst case scenario for filesize would then be 180k, so in theyory 180k for 700px should maiuntain the quality.

It could be usefull to see what resolutions DPC users use. It would also be interesting to see if it differs from main population. But if most of users use 1024x768 then there is no point of increasing maksimum image dimensions, I agree in that. But I suspect a basic user installs windows and has no clue what a resolution is. These days PC and a standard crt monitor i capable of a decent 1280x960 resolution. I have 5 years old setup at work and it is something like 1400x1050 @ 85Hz. But things might be different with an average DPC user, since most of us actually use computer for digital imaging and therefore pays attention to these things like screen resolution and ergonomy.

How about a user poll about this thing then? Ask em what resolution you are using and what image dimensions suits em best? It is important that this site is developed further all the time.

10/26/2004 05:00:31 AM · #49
What about allowing diffrent ratios but keeping the same amount of pixels?

640x640 = 409600 pixels
800x512 = 409600 pixels
1024x400 = 409600 pixels

just my two pixels.
 10/26/2004 05:21:08 AM · #50
I would like to see larger photos, however there are several things that put me off the idea.

1. Photo theft, we've all seen it. How would we protect against it? Auto DPC watermarks?
2. Down load times. Although I have access to Broadband and ISDN, my main upload PC is a dial-up.

How much page redesign would DPC have to do to accomodate this new size? I think that the size we have is ok, and most people do run a lower res screen, (1024x768). Even on my website I try and keep the resolution at 600 max.

What about just keeping the higher res photo for the personal galleries or dpc prints?

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 06:06:18 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: 08/02/2025 06:06:18 PM EDT.