Time to upgrade image size from 640 to 800

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/27/2004 03:29:44 PM · #126

Originally posted by jadin:

Is there some reason all images can't default at 800 pixels horizontal and vertical, and have the website scale the images to fit? It already does this if you upload an image larger than 640 pixels. So why not enable full sized viewing for those who want the larger image, and those who don't can have it scaled (like it already does).

What would your objection be to that?

The uncontrolled recompression creates awful artifacts, out of the view of the photgrapher. Check out people's complaints about DPC Prints thumbs created from larger images like that.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/27/2004 03:31:13 PM · #127

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by kirbic:
I simply cannot believe the amount of hand-wringing over this idea. I've seen (with one exception) every objection dealt with in an objective manner, including...

- Bandwidth: there is no need to raise the file size
- Image height: Image height could remain at 640, while width could increase

You'd be left with the options of cropping, which are already allowed, or entering either a

800x600 landscape picture or
a 480x640 portrait picture.

Now Gordon, it's not so bad ... I resized my Communications entry to 800 pixels and it looks just fine ...

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/27/2004 03:32:18 PM · #128

Originally posted by jadin:

Why penalise the majority (by autoreducing their images, messing up sharpening, no doubt using some quick and dirty nearest neighbour interpolation) to pander to a small minority ? Again, your change is something that would be to the advantage of about 10-20% of the users.

For all the people proposing this: how is this change an advantage for the majority of users ? rather than just you personally ? The whole thing just seems to strike me as motivated by self-interest, rather than
what would be best for the users as a whole.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/27/2004 03:33:15 PM · #129

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Now Gordon, it's not so bad ... I resized my Communications entry to 800 pixels and it looks just fine ...

I thought about suggesting that voters should have to rotate their screens to vote on portrait entries. Seems workable. After all, they've got small screens, it can't be too hard to lift them up, right ?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/27/2004 03:45:16 PM · #130

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Now Gordon, it's not so bad ... I resized my Communications entry to 800 pixels and it looks just fine ...

I thought about suggesting that voters should have to rotate their screens to vote on portrait entries. Seems workable. After all, they've got small screens, it can't be too hard to lift them up, right ?

We can all go get a Radius Pivot or wait and see what Steve Jobs has up his sleeve at Apple.

DrJOnes

Nikon D3

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

10/27/2004 04:06:10 PM · #131

Originally posted by Gordon:

So Martin, from your website stats, how many of your users are working with a resolution capable of viewing an 800 pixel image as a whole, in portrait mode ? For many images, scrolling ruins the impact. It isn't some silly backward looking restriction. If it was a better way to look at images, we'd just show them half at a time, at the time.

All my galleries are displayed in a new window. Almost ALL of my visitors who have access to the galleries (read: member zone) can view vertical images of 800 pixels without scrolling. But if you really want to know, the fact is I have long gone stopped offering images at 800 pixels and now offer them in 1100 resolution, so you can be sure that some of them actually HAVE to scroll. But since we're talking about paying members, they never complaint about this size. They actually prefer it.

Granted, DPC is a public site with a different enterprise, the visitors needs are not exactly the same as the visitors on my sites.

Regardless, there are ways to accomodate most users when providing images of 800 pixels. And that is exactly the subject of the debate here...

At this point, I'm done arguing. I think I've posted what I had to say and mentioned many pros for going 800 pixels.

Great site. Mods, do what you want.

Cheers,

Martin

Message edited by author 2004-10-27 16:07:12.

Gabriel

Pentax K7

Tomioka 55mm f/1.4 in M42 Mount

10/27/2004 04:20:36 PM · #132

What about checking what would be the biggest viewable picture considering it would be displayed in a new window using a 1024x768 screen resolution?

I guess this would be around 740px. Displaying it in a new window would allow to see it without scrolling, and that would be an improvement compared to now were 1024x768 users have to scroll to see 640px height images. This would also represent a 33% increase in allowed picture size (going from 640x640 to 740x740).

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

10/27/2004 04:24:12 PM · #133

NO WAY! Leave it like it is.

blemt

Nikon D70

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

10/27/2004 04:31:38 PM · #134

I have a question for those more technically inclined than I am. Say that the site was recoded so that a new window popped up that gave you a full sized image without scrolling. Would my anti-popup software prevent that feature from working?

Clara

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

10/27/2004 04:32:39 PM · #135

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by jadin:
Is there some reason all images can't default at 800 pixels horizontal and vertical, and have the website scale the images to fit? It already does this if you upload an image larger than 640 pixels. So why not enable full sized viewing for those who want the larger image, and those who don't can have it scaled (like it already does).

What would your objection be to that?

The uncontrolled recompression creates awful artifacts, out of the view of the photgrapher. Check out people's complaints about DPC Prints thumbs created from larger images like that.

You're right about the complaints you get, only the situation is a bit different. Resizing from a 5 megapixel image to a 640 thumb will create exactly what you describe. But resizing an image from 800 to 640 gives little to no change in quality. Dpc already does this if you upload larger than 640. Try uploading some 800 pixel images and take a look at the quality when Dpc displays it. Virtually identical quality.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

10/27/2004 04:39:27 PM · #136

Originally posted by jadin:

But resizing an image from 800 to 640 gives little to no change in quality. Dpc already does this if you upload larger than 640. Try uploading some 800 pixel images and take a look at the quality when Dpc displays it. Virtually identical quality.

How can a lossy compression algorithm resize without losing quality?

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/27/2004 04:42:44 PM · #137

Originally posted by blemt:

It depends.

Some popup blockers do not block, or have settings so they do not block, popups that result from direct clicks on the page

Others have settings that allow you to "exclude" a site or parts of a site from blocking.

Others might block, and not have settings, but usually, at least, you can hold a key while clicking to override.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

10/27/2004 04:43:39 PM · #138

Just because something is lossy doesn't mean it's visible. Try it for yourself.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/27/2004 04:45:14 PM · #139

Originally posted by jadin:

... But resizing an image from 800 to 640 gives little to no change in quality. Dpc already does this if you upload larger than 640. Try uploading some 800 pixel images and take a look at the quality when Dpc displays it. Virtually identical quality.

Those are the images about which I said there had already been complaints.

The degree of image degradation is quite content-dependent. The fact that it is out of the photographer's control makes it completely unfair.

Maybe we can limit the files to the current specs, but have an option to check "Display at 800 pixels" and DPC can upsize your photo automatically ...

Message edited by author 2004-10-27 16:45:45.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

10/27/2004 04:47:14 PM · #140

Originally posted by jadin:

Just because something is lossy doesn't mean it's visible. Try it for yourself.

I've been jpeging 800x600 shots, and there is a loss of sharpness, not to mention colour detail.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

10/27/2004 04:52:03 PM · #141

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by jadin:
Just because something is lossy doesn't mean it's visible. Try it for yourself.

I've been jpeging 800x600 shots, and there is a loss of sharpness, not to mention colour detail.

That's because you're jpeging from a full sized image. I'm talking about resizing 800 to 640. A very small jump in size by comparison.

GeneralE, that might work for me. It wouldn't be as good of quality as the reverse (naturally), but it would still probably look better than the smaller size... (edit) Yeah I did a few tests, I'd like that a lot.

Message edited by author 2004-10-27 16:55:43.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

10/27/2004 04:59:19 PM · #142

This is, inevitably, going around in circles..

Let's get down to brass tacks of the 'I want bigger pictures' argument:

"I've got a large monitor, so I want bigger pictures, and screw those of you that haven't."

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/27/2004 04:59:59 PM · #143

Originally posted by jadin:

GeneralE, that might work for me. It wouldn't be as good of quality as the reverse (naturally), but it would still probably look better than the smaller size... (edit) Yeah I did a few tests, I'd like that a lot.

Darn, sarcasm just doesn't work.

Reminds me of a (possibly apocryphal) story I heard about General Electric, where they use to "haze" the new engineers by giving them the "assignement" of frosting the inside of a light bulb. They had to stop that particular prank when one guy went off to his lab and figured out a way to do it ...

jab119

10/27/2004 05:00:11 PM · #144

I say if its going to be done then do it right the first time, or dont do it at all.

Plus make it only avalable to paid members to have larger image sizes. This might encourage more people to become a paid member, thus DPC would have more money to maintain the site.

James

Amason

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZF f/2.0 Makro-Planar T

10/27/2004 05:06:18 PM · #145

I think that the current size is just fine as it is at 640 pixels, horizontal photos shouldn't have an advantage over vertical photos. And when I think more of it, it will be more expensive to vote, at least here in Iceland because of the ridigilous internet system here, we pay almost 4 cents a meg here, maybe not all of us because of variable subscriptions.
After I began voting a lot and became more active on the site last summer, I noticed my internet cost was about $10-15 higher a month, that is $120-180 cost for viewing and voting on DPC a year! Then the $25 for the membership is just some change compared to that. If the photos will be larger, and the files will be 50% larger, maybe 225kb instead of 150kb, this cost will be about 50% higher for most of us Icelanders. This isn't maybe a lot of money, but worth considering. And this isn't the reason I don't want larger images, the main reason is that the current 640 pixels is already too large for many of the users when viewing vertical photos. On my laptop with 1024x768 screen size settings I have to hit F11 to be able to see all of a 640 pixels vertical photo.

So my vote goes to the 640 pixels

Patents4u

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/27/2004 06:04:45 PM · #146

Haven't read much of this thread, but I got the gist I think....the good DrJones wants to post larger pictures and you people are actually arguing about it??

What are you waiting for? GET IT DONE. MAKE IT HAPPEN. :-)

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

10/27/2004 09:15:45 PM · #147

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Darn, sarcasm just doesn't work.

The internet never does sarcasm justice. It really did look better in my tests.

Maybe they should've just let the guy go off and try to figure it out. Maybe he would've came up with some amazing new technology.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/27/2004 09:22:10 PM · #148

Originally posted by blemt:

It probably would not prevent it, but it might. It depends on how well-written or buggy the popup blocking software is.

-Terry

robsmith

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon

10/28/2004 07:03:41 AM · #149

Originally posted by jadin:

Well this is probably the straw that broke this camel's back. I most likely won't be updating my membership. For starters I rarely enter any challenges. After checking EzPrints prices they are quite reasonable making the membership fee here worthless. They offer lustre prints right now. Dpc has yet to update the coding of well anything since I've been here, despite the promises of "almost there!". A general stubborn refusal to change. And an equal stubborn refusal to disagree with it's clientele.

"You won't be missed!" - Yeah, yeah, the feelings mutual.

The most sensible thing you've said so far - please ensure the door DOES hit your butt on the way out.

Go and concentrate on taking photos rather than enforce your views on others, I wonder what would your opinion be if you didn't have the latest and greatest of computer equipment?