| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2004 05:22:35 AM · #51 |
A few things...
- First: Anyone running 800x600 or smaller has to scroll RIGHT NOW to see the rest of a 640 vertical image. Why aren't they complaining now? Or maybe it's just not as big a deal as you keep trying to enforce.
- Second: Most users use Internet Explorer. I can vouch from my website at least 90% of my visitors are running IE. IE has a nifty little feature called "auto-image resizing". You can find it by going to the tools menu -> internet options -> advanced tab -> under the section mutlimedia. This solves any problem of people not being able to see all of the image at the same time.
- Third: Most users who are running lower than 1024x768, just plain don't know any better. Those who think the text is too small at 768 are probably using 15" or smaller monitors. Computers get outdated quickly. It is inevitable, why should your monitor size be any different? 17" monitors are both larger making it more enjoyable to work on your computer, and usually look better as well for the same reason(s). While it might seem rude to say they should upgrade, I don't think it is. Every person I know who bought a larger monitor has never been unhappy about their decision. My dad even wound up buying my old 21" monitor simply because he would not like to downgrade to anything else when I moved out. The grass is greener over here, and there's plenty of room, what is your excuse for not enjoying it with us? The only reasonable excuse (in my mind) would be financial reasons, but first off you have a computer to begin with, and second 17" monitors can be extremely inexpensive. Like I said, you won't regret it.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:27:20 AM · #52 |
If you haven't viewed a screen at 800x600 or 640x480 in a while I suggest you try it right now. You can litterally see gaps in the virtical lines. There just plain isn't enough pixels. At 1024x768, the lines completely disappear.
Try it.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:36:57 AM · #53 |
For the usesrs running at 800x600 then try hitting F11 on your keyboard for fullscreen mode and again to turn it off.
Thats if you are using IE.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:52:30 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by jadin:
While it might seem rude to say they should upgrade, I don't think it is. |
I see it as being akin to asking people to make sure their monitor is calibrated. Which is already done on this site with the gradation bar at the bottom of every photo you vote on. While I may be prejudiced because my resolution is set to 1280x1024, I don't see any problem in asking them to change their resolution to at least 1024x768 to accommodate larger photos. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:57:20 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by jadin:
If you haven't viewed a screen at 800x600 or 640x480 in a while I suggest you try it right now. You can litterally see gaps in the virtical lines. There just plain isn't enough pixels. At 1024x768, the lines completely disappear. |
And your size and quality of monitor is.....?
If you're using a nice large CRT that's true... Is everyone using one? Of course not.
Originally posted by jadin:
Third: Most users who are running lower than 1024x768, just plain don't know any better. Those who think the text is too small at 768 are probably using 15" or smaller monitors. ... While it might seem rude to say they should upgrade, I don't think it is. |
Every heard of something called a notebook?
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:02:21 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by jadin:
Third: Most users who are running lower than 1024x768, just plain don't know any better. Those who think the text is too small at 768 are probably using 15" or smaller monitors. ... While it might seem rude to say they should upgrade, I don't think it is. |
Every heard of something called a notebook? |
I've been looking at a lot of notebooks lately, both new and used, and haven't come across one that wasn't XGA or better. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:09:37 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I've been looking at a lot of notebooks lately, both new and used, and haven't come across one that wasn't XGA or better. |
And XGA can't display a 600x800 image.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:11:46 AM · #58 |
| My Palm T3 only runs to 320 x 480 :( |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:17:27 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I've been looking at a lot of notebooks lately, both new and used, and haven't come across one that wasn't XGA or better. |
And XGA can't display a 600x800 image. |
But it can display an 800x600 image, what we've been talking about, and actually shows more of a 600x800 image than a monitor set to 800x600 shows of a 480x640 image. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:20:49 AM · #60 |
My screen runs at 1280 x1024, but the bigger question for me is the band width since I am on dialup. The 800x800 image size does not matter too much if the file size stay the same, 150kb. But you can lose a bit of clarity in the image.
I am for just leaving it the way it is. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:21:32 AM · #61 |
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?!
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 06:32:53 AM · #62 |
I propose that TechniShroom and the rest of the folks advocating larger file sizes contribute to the, "Buy Clara a Larger Monitor" fund. ;)
Jokes aside, I don't have the disposable income to get a new monitor right now. 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.
Clara |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:13:46 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by willem:
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. |
I'm very open to suggestions, and frequently champion suggestions from users if I feel they will improve the site. I'm sorry, but I do not believe this suggestion will improve the site. In fact, I feel that it will degrade the quality of the site for a large majority of users, and that is why I am arguing so strongly against it.
Please do not mistake my disagreement with this particular suggestion with a general unwillingness to change.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:17:16 AM · #64 |
[quote]EDIT: Quoted wrong person, they talked about squinting to read the font[/quote]
I second that. If the image size was increased, I'd be forced to higher my resolution on my computer. I already have a really hard time reading the fonts here at DPC (for some reason, View, Text Size, Larger doesn't change the font size here) although it's bearable unlike istock's message boards where I get a headache every time I try to read something there.
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 07:18:55.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:17:39 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by lode:
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. |
There would be no need to run a poll for this, since the server can actually capture those statistics directly. I vaguely remember seeing the numbers once (I could be remembering incorrectly, though) and them being substantially similar to Ecce Signum's numbers I posted above.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:26:13 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by jadin:
A few things...
- First: Anyone running 800x600 or smaller has to scroll RIGHT NOW to see the rest of a 640 vertical image. Why aren't they complaining now? Or maybe it's just not as big a deal as you keep trying to enforce. |
The difference is that by allowing 800-vertical images, we are also now putting 1024x768 users in the position of having to scroll as well. In essence this would mean designing the site in such a way that some 85% of the site's users would not be able to fit the challange images on their screens. It is important that the site be designed in such a way as to be eaily usable by the vast majority of visitors, and the 640 limit is designed with that in mind.
-Terry
Originally posted by jadin:
- Second: Most users use Internet Explorer. I can vouch from my website at least 90% of my visitors are running IE. IE has a nifty little feature called "auto-image resizing". You can find it by going to the tools menu -> internet options -> advanced tab -> under the section mutlimedia. This solves any problem of people not being able to see all of the image at the same time. |
Auto image resizing only works when you are viewing an image that is NOT embedded in a web page, so it would not help here. To my knowledge, it is also not Drew and Langdon's intention to make DPC specific to any particular browser.
Originally posted by jadin:
- Third: Most users who are running lower than 1024x768, just plain don't know any better. Those who think the text is too small at 768 are probably using 15" or smaller monitors. Computers get outdated quickly. It is inevitable, why should your monitor size be any different? 17" monitors are both larger making it more enjoyable to work on your computer, and usually look better as well for the same reason(s). While it might seem rude to say they should upgrade, I don't think it is. Every person I know who bought a larger monitor has never been unhappy about their decision. My dad even wound up buying my old 21" monitor simply because he would not like to downgrade to anything else when I moved out. The grass is greener over here, and there's plenty of room, what is your excuse for not enjoying it with us? The only reasonable excuse (in my mind) would be financial reasons, but first off you have a computer to begin with, and second 17" monitors can be extremely inexpensive. Like I said, you won't regret it. |
Hardware upgrades aside, even a user at 1024x768 cannot view an image on-screen that is 800 pixels in the vertical dimension.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 07:29:53.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:29:17 AM · #67 |
Didn't read the entire thread so sorry if this has already been said.
Why not bring it in line with what DigitalPhotoContest does? They allow the image to be 480px on it's shortest side. This opens up the possibility of submitters being able to submit decent looking panoramic crops and such without the image being teeny-tiny. But, DPChallenge would allow the image to be 640px on its shortest side instead of 480px. Is this reasonable?
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:32:09 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by jadin:
While it might seem rude to say they should upgrade, I don't think it is. |
I see it as being akin to asking people to make sure their monitor is calibrated. Which is already done on this site with the gradation bar at the bottom of every photo you vote on. While I may be prejudiced because my resolution is set to 1280x1024, I don't see any problem in asking them to change their resolution to at least 1024x768 to accommodate larger photos. |
Again, 1024x768 is not enough resolution for what people are asking here.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:33:38 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by wackybill:
Didn't read the entire thread so sorry if this has already been said.
Why not bring it in line with what DigitalPhotoContest does? They allow the image to be 480px on it's shortest side. This opens up the possibility of submitters being able to submit decent looking panoramic crops and such without the image being teeny-tiny. But, DPChallenge would allow the image to be 640px on its shortest side instead of 480px. Is this reasonable? |
The responses I've posted do cover this.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:38:04 AM · #70 |
In my own tests I found no difference in quality loss moving from 640 @ 150k to 800 @ 150k. I urge you to test the results on your own.
640:
800:
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.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The difference is that by allowing 800-vertical images, we are also now putting 1024x768 users in the position of having to scroll as well. |
True, however, you wouldn't be scrolling for every image. I'd say the majority of submissions are landscape.
[edited thumbs to external website since dpc resizes my portfolio images to 640]
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 07:41:27.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 07:40:14 AM · #71 |
After reading the whole thread, it seems to me the question isn't whether to increase the dimensions or file size, but when. When the site was designed 3 years ago, the demographics of monitor size, resolution and download bandwidth were much different from today and those demographics will be much different in a few more years.
The second thing that seems clear is that there is a lot of speculation about what capability people have, but no real facts or observations. Hopefully site admin is collecting those facts as a part of routine operation. What are the facts? And if they are not being collected, a simple php poll could determine them.
The third thing that I would observe is that this is ought to be a user dominated discussion rather than a supplier dominated discussion. From a thread a few weeks ago, current server space occupied by photos was something like 20-25 GB. Even with RAID 5 striping and redundancy adding something like 25%, it's still under 50 GB. Sure disk, CPU and bandwidth cost something, but they cost less each year. At some point it will be feasible to provide 100 GB and necessary data transfer for the current membership price, and it is certainly feasible to change the price to offer it sooner if that's what people want.
I personally run a pretty hot machine, with Broadband Cable internet service and a large 1600 x 1200 monitor. At this moment, I would be personally in favor of a change. But I am pursuaded by the thread that Terry is right ... at the moment it would degrade rather than improve the site. At some point that will stop being true. How about collecting some facts and give it a go to decide when?
In some ways, this is a bit like the discussion about requiring EXIF data and no longer accepting photos without it. At some point it will be time to move on.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:04:45 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by jadin:
In my own tests I found no difference in quality loss moving from 640 @ 150k to 800 @ 150k. I urge you to test the results on your own.
|
We already know that with some photos, the current 150k limit is visibly degrading quality. If the pixel size limit were increased, I personnaly think that the 150k limit should also be increased in proportions. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:09:46 AM · #73 |
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.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:25:52 AM · #74 |
I guess I shouldn't tell you that I just gave away 4 samsung SyncMaster 753DF 17". Sorry only available in Canada and no I won't ship. I will post again when I get some more cuz there free:D and they display 1024x768
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 08:26:09.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:33:26 AM · #75 |
If we for a moment assume that DPC statistics are similar to Clubjuggle's own site (need to be verified, might be better because of specific image interests) :
Then almost 62 % of visitors would not need to scroll with a 600 high image and a standard IE setup (i.e. this 62% has a vertical screen resolution of 768 or higher). The other 38% already needs to scroll today with the allowed 640 high. So no change here.
Also almost 62% would not need to scroll horizontally if an image would be 800 wide (they have a screen resolution of 832 or higher).
But if we would limit the maxiumum width to 800 minus the IE scrollbar, then also people with 800 wide would not have to scroll, bringing the percentage up from 62 to 97%.
I don't know how many pixels a normal scrollbar is, let's say 20.
So if we allow 780 wide then 97 % would not have to scroll horizontally.
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.
Let's get some DPC statistics.
Willem |
|
