| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2004 08:36:47 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by siggi:
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. |
no one has quotes this, but i think it's a great idea. It's quite impossible to show a panorama in the current format. This would allow that. and if someone is stupid enough to make a 100 pixel wide, 4096 tall image (thats still 409600 pixels), thats they're problem if they end up last :).
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:51:08 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by willem:
So, if we keep maximum 640 high and allow 780 wide, plus keep the 150 K limit, then only 3% of the users would be affected.
|
This is sensible, but I would let file size inch up to about 180K to preserve image quality. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:51:17 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by jadin:
I'd like to see some examples. |
 |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:53:11 AM · #79 |
i vote bigger is better, and i don't see a problem with keeping files around 150-200K with the larger size. at least for the member challenges, i think this should be fine.
if you're really interested in showing your best work, then you should advocate a larger photo size.
a suggestion:
if disk space were not an issue (which it is, but i'm discounting temporarily), perhaps when large photos are uploaded the site could resize them to thumbnail as well as to 640x(640). Keep the standard challenge pages to display the 640 image. Then if you want to see a larger version of an image when browsing through challenges, you can click on it to see it at the true, uploaded size. Most stock photo sites (reputable ones, that is) have 3 viewable sizes: thumb, medium, large/comp.
i think it's funny when people who will spend $1500 on digital photo equipment won't buy a $300 monitor on which to view them. it's like a "real" photographer getting all of his images developed at Wal-Mart.
and with that, you may now continue the squabbling... |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:28:37 AM · #80 |
One thing that came to mind to me on the proposal of allowing a longer maximum length on the horizonatal axis only (max 780 width and max 640 height) is that it seems like this will allow landscape orientated photos to overwhelm portrait orientation on pixel count alone.
I wonder if this would lead to much more use of this format and if not stifle then maybe discourage entries in vertical aspect because they might not be able to pump up that "wow" factor in a constrained pixel count.
Just some thoughts; more fuel for the fire :-) |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:32:06 AM · #81 |
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. |
From a purely photographic education stand point, we should be doing everything possible to encourage entrants to break away from the standing normally, camera held in landscape mode of photography. Adding a disincentive to enter portrait mode photographs (by limiting their size, in comparision to landscape entries) would be passively encouraging trite, boring photography.
I think it would be wonderful if we could all view 800x600 images on our 1280x1024 monitors. Maybe in a few years time we will and that would be a good time to change. But introducing a change to address the needs of 10% of the users while promoting less interesting photography amongst the majority of entrants and voters doesn't seem a good direction to go in right now. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:39:39 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by Gabriel:
We already know that with some photos, the current 150k limit is visibly degrading quality. |
I'd like to see some examples. |
I have some pictures that I've taken where JPEG quality 51 = 152k and JPEG quality 50 = 70k
There is a step change in JPEG compression quality between 50 and 51. In the end, I didn't enter the image.
Lots of intricate detail is required. Your sample had a lot of areas with little detail which are particularly well suited to JPEG compression |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:47:52 AM · #83 |
I would think it would be ok to upload image lager than 640x640 but I'm not sure if I want everyone to be able to view, due to image theft.
But then why upload a bigger file?
like i posted before I would like to see the 640x640 limit more flexible with out changeing the total pixel count or the 150kb limit.
like 800x512 for panorama.
The 150kb limit is good and makes voting possible for modem users.
increasing the limit to 200kb would make voting for modem users 7 sec longer for each picture to load, most modems are 56kilobits = 7 kb
150kb = 21 sec
200kb = 28 sec
12 minutes for every 100 photos.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:50:44 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I have some pictures that I've taken where JPEG quality 51 = 152k and JPEG quality 50 = 70k
There is a step change in JPEG compression quality between 50 and 51. In the end, I didn't enter the image.
|
I had s similar problem once with quality. I just resized the picture again, from 640 to 600 and I was fine, not much detail lost but got the size under the 150k limit |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:59:40 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by siggi:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I have some pictures that I've taken where JPEG quality 51 = 152k and JPEG quality 50 = 70k
There is a step change in JPEG compression quality between 50 and 51. In the end, I didn't enter the image.
|
I had s similar problem once with quality. I just resized the picture again, from 640 to 600 and I was fine, not much detail lost but got the size under the 150k limit |
Yup - that works for 640x480. 800x600 @ 150k would encounter this problem more frequently and require a more significant size reduction.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:49:33 AM · #86 |
Another thought on this - if the images barely fit the height of the screen, then you'll have to scroll to vote on every single image.
800 pixels high just covers the image, not the browser toolbars, OS toolbars or voting buttons. You can reduce some of those, but not all.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 12:07:16 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i think it's funny when people who will spend $1500 on digital photo equipment won't buy a $300 monitor on which to view them. it's like a "real" photographer getting all of his images developed at Wal-Mart.
|
You'd be amazed what Wal-Mart kind of printers can do with an 800x600 200kb image....
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 12:40:26 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by billmorton:
Bigger pictures!
Bandwidth and space is dirt cheap. Even I have a 1TB Raid 5 ... its not expensive. |
Why don't you support dpchallenge then?
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 12:46:29 PM · #89 |
I say keep it as it is. 640x640 is plenty for on-screen viewing. And I have scroll down for a 640 sized image on a 1024x768 screen because of the large space above the image. That should be fixed, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:04:24 PM · #90 |
| Would this really benefit all, or make images coming from certain cameras better then others? |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:17:06 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Would this really benefit all, or make images coming from certain cameras better then others? |
I think this is the crux of the matter.
I view via DVI so I have no control over screen resolution. I would love to submit using higher resolution as detail in pics degrades on lower resolutions, but it is a matter of cost versus clarity.
I have always been prepared to supply anyone with hi-res photo if they want it, at no charge. Just as long as they can download it. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:36:17 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by jadin:
Originally posted by blemt:
I also don't enjoy squinting at a 1600x1200 resolution screen either. I do "serious editing" of my images on my little ole monitor and do just fine thankyouverymuch. |
Nobody is saying you have to go up to 1600x1200. But is 1024x768, which is currently the internet standard, to much to ask for? Just think of how many times you've seen "best viewed at 1024x768". It's everywhere. |
I'm at 1024x768. :) At that resolution, using Mozilla on my 17 inch monitor I have to scroll. Using IE, I have to scroll.
I object to having to scroll more. :)
I also object to the idea that I'm in some way an inferior person or less serious photographer because I chose to spend my limited funds on things like rent, food, and utilities before I spend it on new computer gear. :)
Clara
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:56:46 PM · #93 |
I wanted to post on this this morning, but I've been offline today in a meeting. My opinion is well known, but I wanted to reiterate it... please recognize that this is my own personal opinion.
1.) It is possible, as has been posted, to go to 800Wx640H with no impact to what is viewable on a 1024x768 screen.
2.) It is possible to go to 800x640 without increasing the 150kb limit. A while back I ran a test with 640x640, 720x720, and 800x800 images and various target file sizes. Results are here. My conclusion: a high-deatail shot at 800x800 is just starting to show real artifacts at 150k; 640x800 will be better.
3.) If we implemented "background downloads" so that the next photo in queue was downloading while the user votes on the current one, we could actually speed up the process.
In short, the only valid downside I see to larger image width is the "image theft" problem, which I don't see as being significantly different for 800px images as opposed to 640px images. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:17:17 PM · #94 |
| I'm all in favour of this. Even if file size remains 150k. Some images really suffer from a lack of detail at 640. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:42:57 PM · #95 |
why not just skipping all but the 150kb limit and let the photographer choose the dimensions.
If he makes it too high or wide he will suffer in voteing and people with smaller monitors will complain about the dimensions of the picture.
This is consistant with the off topic pictures thing, they will be voted down if they dont please the user.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:56:44 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Formerlee:
I view via DVI so I have no control over screen resolution. |
Hmm... I also view over DVI on a Windows XP machine and do have control over monitor resolution.
Originally posted by kirbic:
If we implemented "background downloads" so that the next photo in queue was downloading |
Like this idea a lot. Improved performance for all and the ability to handle bigger files without voting penalty. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:31:33 PM · #97 |
I say lets do what they did for the "Master's Challenge" and try this idea out with a trial challenge to see how we like it.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:39:11 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
But it can display an 800x600 image, what we've been talking about |
So users can submit landscape shots but not portrait?! |
Sorry, part of two thoughts that must have gotten mingled. The rest of my comment is what I meant. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:41:46 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I wanted to post on this this morning, but I've been offline today in a meeting. My opinion is well known, but I wanted to reiterate it... please recognize that this is my own personal opinion.
1.) It is possible, as has been posted, to go to 800Wx640H with no impact to what is viewable on a 1024x768 screen.
2.) It is possible to go to 800x640 without increasing the 150kb limit. A while back I ran a test with 640x640, 720x720, and 800x800 images and various target file sizes. Results are here. My conclusion: a high-deatail shot at 800x800 is just starting to show real artifacts at 150k; 640x800 will be better.
3.) If we implemented "background downloads" so that the next photo in queue was downloading while the user votes on the current one, we could actually speed up the process.
In short, the only valid downside I see to larger image width is the "image theft" problem, which I don't see as being significantly different for 800px images as opposed to 640px images. |
Could you address this downside, that I posted earlier in this thread ?
From a purely photographic education stand point, we should be doing everything possible to encourage entrants to break away from the standing normally, camera held in landscape mode of photography. Adding a disincentive to enter portrait mode photographs (by limiting their size, in comparision to landscape entries) would be passively encouraging unoriginal photography.
Allowing larger images in landscape mode only, adds a large disencentive to enter portrait mode, smaller, less detailed, generally inferior compared to that 800x600 landscape photo at 480x640 in portrait orientation ( for standard aspect ratios)
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 20:44:32.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:19:15 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
[quote=kirbic] ...Allowing larger images in landscape mode only, adds a large disencentive to enter portrait mode, smaller, less detailed, generally inferior compared to that 800x600 landscape photo at 480x640 in portrait orientation ( for standard aspect ratios) |
Or, conversely, allows more creativity since it would make submission of more "panoramic" formatted images practical. Every argument has two sides.
I positively cannot see how allowing MORE flexibiltiy implies a DISincentive to creatibity. Just my 2¢. |
|
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: 06/25/2025 02:37:42 PM EDT.
