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 151 - 168 of 168, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/28/2004 07:22:13 AM · #151
Originally posted by jadin:
But seriously, get real, 1024x768 has been around for literally decades, it's not the latest and greatest. It's fastly becoming the minimum requirements. Anyone who isn't running 1024x768 has a) never been shown how nice it is, or b) doesn't realize the benefits it offers. Oh I'll add c also .. c) doesn't know how to change the resolution on their computer.


My monitor at home is 1024x768 as a minimum...but that's what I choose to run at all the time anyway because it seems to work best for ME. I know how to change it, I've tried all kinds of settings, but I like "literally decades old" 1024x768. At work, 1024x768 is the MAXIMUM I can get...but please don't suggest going out and getting a new monitor, because that's out of the question. I'd be willing to venture that, myself included, a lot of people can't just go buy the next best thing simply because it's cool. The site has found what works for the majority and to put it in the simplest of terms, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Just my opinion. :o)
 10/28/2004 07:26:41 AM · #152
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by jadin:
But seriously, get real, 1024x768 has been around for literally decades, it's not the latest and greatest. It's fastly becoming the minimum requirements. Anyone who isn't running 1024x768 has a) never been shown how nice it is, or b) doesn't realize the benefits it offers. Oh I'll add c also .. c) doesn't know how to change the resolution on their computer.


My monitor at home is 1024x768 as a minimum...but that's what I choose to run at all the time anyway because it seems to work best for ME. I know how to change it, I've tried all kinds of settings, but I like "literally decades old" 1024x768. At work, 1024x768 is the MAXIMUM I can get...but please don't suggest going out and getting a new monitor, because that's out of the question. I'd be willing to venture that, myself included, a lot of people can't just go buy the next best thing simply because it's cool. The site has found what works for the majority and to put it in the simplest of terms, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Just my opinion. :o)


1024x768 is what I'm trying to advocate. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 10/28/2004 07:29:15 AM · #153
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
In any case, it's probably a moot point. I talked to Drew earlier this evening (to get some site stats on the issue), and he also feels strongly that increasing the image size is a bad idea, primarily for the reasons already mentioned.

 10/28/2004 07:31:07 AM · #154
I believe that the current size is perfectly acceptable for the purposes of this site. Anything larger would simply exacerbate an issue that MANY DPC members have regularly grating on their nerves.

That being, Image Theft. A 640x480 image isn't as attractive to a potential or outright 'thief' as a 800x600 image is. Granted, this isn't so much a problem for me, since I make my income elsewhere, but there might well be a time where I receive a few ribbons and want to sell some of my images as prints...

What's my recourse when my ribbon winning image is presented on DPC at 800x600 and I want to go and sell that? From my limited understanding, an 800x600 image will print nicely almost up to an 8x10. Why would someone spend the X number of dollars that I would charge for my image, when they can produce a displayable version for 1/2X or 1/4X my price?

So, to end my take on this, photo size increases are not wanted by this DPC'er.

To answer the thing about my desktop resolutions...

My Laptop 1650x1152 (Or there abouts, Wide-Screen)

Home Desktop 1280x1024

Primary Work Desktop 1024x768

I do all my photo editing on either the laptop or the home desktop.
 10/28/2004 08:12:11 AM · #155
Originally posted by jadin:
1024x768 is what I'm trying to advocate. Nothing more. Nothing less.


Jadin- I'm not quite sure that you are understanding a key part of this argument. I currently run at 1024x768. I have to scroll to view images right now. I am unable to see the whole image in one pass.

I do not want to have to scroll MORE to view images. At least this way I only miss maybe 10% of the image. I don't complain about scroll right now because frankly the site is in line with current WC3 guidelines on accessability. In other words, the site is inline with an interenational standard.

Let me ask you something. What resolution and monitor size are you using?

Clara
 10/28/2004 08:12:46 AM · #156
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.


That was my point a few days ago. Professional stock photo sites have resizing algorithms that provide for high-quality image resizing. Why not let people upload 800x800 images, but have the default view in voting mode be 640x640? Then if someone wants to see more detail, they can click on the image and a new window will pop up (or not popup...could easily be done within the same window) with the full size image included.

I dunno. I don't want to get into a big argument about screen resolutions, etc. I just can't believe that every little issue like this seems to cause such a HUGE freakin' controversy. It seems like this site is always going to be a huge struggle between the haves and the have-nots, even though I don't think DrJones nor myself nor anyone else on the "yes" side of this issue is presenting it that way.

If image theft is such a big problem, why do people continue to post images online? I'm sorry...I could blow up a 640 image every bit as much as I could blow up an 800 image. Anyone who is dead set and determined to steal the image is going to do it, no matter what. My front door has a big glass pane in it. I could put tons of deadbolts and alarms and chains on it, but if someone really wants to get in, they're going to. I'm not discounting anyone's fears about image theft, but I really don't think this is the proper way to deal with it. If that's the case, let's just vote on thumbnails and be done.
 10/28/2004 08:20:21 AM · #157
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
In any case, it's probably a moot point. I talked to Drew earlier this evening (to get some site stats on the issue), and he also feels strongly that increasing the image size is a bad idea, primarily for the reasons already mentioned.


And Terry, I'm sorry and please don't take this personally, but comments like this tick me off. It smacks of someone being on the Site Council and saying "Hey, D&L...guess what some of these dorks on the forums want NOW! I mean, jeez...what a ridiculous idea!"

As far as I understand it, the SC is here to advocate for the users and keep the debates we have in line. I just hate the feeling like you guys get the "gist" of the argument and then go into your own secret little forums and have a discussion that completely excludes everyone else. We've offered a number of solutions and compromises in this thread, and I don't feel that those have been communicated.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, and I'm not trying to ruffle feathers. It just feels like a little kid saying "well, MY mommy says we don't HAVE to, so there!"

Thanks. And again, sorry. :)
 10/28/2004 08:57:52 AM · #158
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
In any case, it's probably a moot point. I talked to Drew earlier this evening (to get some site stats on the issue), and he also feels strongly that increasing the image size is a bad idea, primarily for the reasons already mentioned.


And Terry, I'm sorry and please don't take this personally, but comments like this tick me off. It smacks of someone being on the Site Council and saying "Hey, D&L...guess what some of these dorks on the forums want NOW! I mean, jeez...what a ridiculous idea!"

As far as I understand it, the SC is here to advocate for the users and keep the debates we have in line. I just hate the feeling like you guys get the "gist" of the argument and then go into your own secret little forums and have a discussion that completely excludes everyone else. We've offered a number of solutions and compromises in this thread, and I don't feel that those have been communicated.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, and I'm not trying to ruffle feathers. It just feels like a little kid saying "well, MY mommy says we don't HAVE to, so there!"

Thanks. And again, sorry. :)


You should take CJ's posts as his own personal opinion, not the opinion of the SC as a body. For the record, my (personal) opinion is quite different.
BTW, I also found the post you quoted a bit off-putting. Just because one of the admins has that opinion at this point does not mean that it couldn't change, if enough folks want it. Also, we as SC should resist the temptation to support our own opinions with the "appeal to authority" argument. Again, that's my personal opinion.
Also for the record, there has been no conclusive SC vote on the matter, and it has not been "officially" discussed amongst the SC since the start of this thread.

10/28/2004 09:55:35 AM · #159
Originally posted by muckpond:
That was my point a few days ago. Professional stock photo sites have resizing algorithms that provide for high-quality image resizing. Why not let people upload 800x800 images, but have the default view in voting mode be 640x640? Then if someone wants to see more detail, they can click on the image and a new window will pop up (or not popup...could easily be done within the same window) with the full size image included.


I think I would be pretty strongly opposed to any change that lets different voters view our entries in different ways.

And it is the voters we are thinking about here, or it should be anyway. In the future if things change so that the upgrades proposed in this thread become favored by a majority we should remember that the group defined as voters is not the same as all users of the site. As a sub-group of all users, or all visitors, those that vote most are not the ones with the newest, most technologically advanced equipment. Most "serious" users don't vote as much as the newbies do.

Like Laurie said "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

10/29/2004 12:00:04 AM · #160
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by jadin:
1024x768 is what I'm trying to advocate. Nothing more. Nothing less.


Jadin- I'm not quite sure that you are understanding a key part of this argument. I currently run at 1024x768. I have to scroll to view images right now. I am unable to see the whole image in one pass.

I do not want to have to scroll MORE to view images. At least this way I only miss maybe 10% of the image. I don't complain about scroll right now because frankly the site is in line with current WC3 guidelines on accessability. In other words, the site is inline with an interenational standard.

Let me ask you something. What resolution and monitor size are you using?

Clara


If you've read all of my posts on this topic (yeah there's a lot so I don't expect it) you would know that I do understand the issue in it's entirity.

I'm using a 21" monitor at 1280x1024 resolution.

I don't think many of you realize how much better it looks at 800 pixels. This means more photos will get better scores since they are in fact more appealing. You're basically telling me 'I want lower scores since I'd have to scroll'. Well you wouldn't have to scroll if we enabled scalability.

I think muckpond said it better than I could. There is no reason for not allowing scalability to fit everyone's preferences.

Anyway we've been beating this issue to death, both sides have stated their reasons repeatedly and we're not going to come to an agreement anytime soon.

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 00:00:53.
 10/29/2004 12:16:28 AM · #161
Originally posted by jadin:
I don't think many of you realize how much better it looks at 800 pixels. This means more photos will get better scores since they are in fact more appealing. You're basically telling me 'I want lower scores since I'd have to scroll'. Well you wouldn't have to scroll if we enabled scalability.

I think muckpond said it better than I could. There is no reason for not allowing scalability to fit everyone's preferences.


Scalability presents some real problems. By scalimg images using an automated algorithm, you create the possibility for the server to do a bad job of scaling a particular image for viewing. The photographer of that image is then penalized in the scoring for a server-generated resize that is beyond his or her control. This is also why we do not allow voting based on thumbnails.

From practical experience, we have seen that server-generated resizes cause problems. DPC Prints generates preview images on the server, and periodically we run into problems where a resize is of very poor quality. In those cases Drew and Langdon have had to intervene manually to fix this problem. This is bad enough on the relatively small number of prints uploaded per week, it would be unmanageable when spread over the much-lager number of weekly challenge submissions.

Additionally, one would need to consider the tremendous draw on server resources required to render the submissions at various sizes on demand, in the form of processing power to handle the resizes in real-time, and/or disk capacity to cache the resized images.

-Terry
 10/29/2004 01:31:02 AM · #162
Alright, I surrender. Every option we've come up with has a logic and fair reason why it won't work. I just thought it would be a great benefit to be able to see the images closer to their true glory. Guess we'll just have to wait until more people are ready. But don't take too long..
10/29/2004 01:47:43 AM · #163
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
...
Scalability presents some real problems. By scalimg images using an automated algorithm, you create the possibility for the server to do a bad job of scaling a particular image for viewing.
...


I just ran across a great example of terrible quality on resizing. It's one of my favorite images, but as a thumbnail, it looks absolutely hideous for some reason:



Granted, it's only about 1KB, and for scaling 800xN images to 640xN it should be possible to have the server use the highest quality possible for a given image, respecting the 150KB maximum.

Don't forget that this will mean recompressing the JPEG image! Yuck! Always a bad thing.
 10/29/2004 02:01:33 AM · #164
Originally posted by jadin:
Alright, I surrender. Every option we've come up with has a logic and fair reason why it won't work. ...

And they have also had logical and fair reasons whey they would work.

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
... Additionally, one would need to consider the tremendous draw on server resources required to render the submissions at various sizes on demand, in the form of processing power to handle the resizes in real-time, and/or disk capacity to cache the resized images.

There is little reason for the server to do the scaling -- it could be done client-side.

***

But for the record, I would like the image sizes to be larger because larger resolution images look better and allow images with much greater detail -- and I run at 1600x1200 so the scrolling arguement is mute with me. However, I am ambivalent toward the idea, in learning photography the 640x480 size is adequate to learn with (although larger would be nice).

I am quite certainly against the resizing of the images outside of the control of the photographer -- it would lack the post processing required to present the image at its best at the resized resolution. The sharpness of the image would be hardest hit, I believe, but I am also certain there would be other issues to deal with as well. Over all, just not worth the trouble.

But out of curiosity, why have the dimensions been mainly standard screen resolution dimensions? There are more numbers than just 640 and 800.

I would like to see more width for some images. As it is, panaramics and triptychs are rarely seen in a manner that does them justice.

David

David
 03/06/2005 10:59:11 PM · #165
If you are worried about monitor costs.....I just bought an ENVISION 19" flat screen CRT from ABC Warehouse for $150. It's been amazing for the cost.
 03/06/2005 11:40:41 PM · #166
Here, HERE! Upgrade now! It is time. Max dimension 800 is over due!
 03/07/2005 12:04:15 AM · #167
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
... Additionally, one would need to consider the tremendous draw on server resources required to render the submissions at various sizes on demand, in the form of processing power to handle the resizes in real-time, and/or disk capacity to cache the resized images.

There is little reason for the server to do the scaling -- it could be done client-side.

***


Couldn't each user simply upload a 640 and an 800 image?
 03/07/2005 12:08:17 AM · #168
Originally posted by Gordon:
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 ?


Not necessarily, however, the majority of visitors definately prefer the larger dimensions.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 09:15:06 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: 08/14/2025 09:15:06 PM EDT.