| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2006 08:48:19 PM · #176 |
Yeah, but EVERYONE is squeezing detail into 640...I think your image is great at both resolutions...and, yeah, the higher resolution one looks better, but EVERYONE is working within the same boundries and if your image is a 10th place entry at 640, against 640 images, it would be a 10th place entry at 800...
I think that's due to the way people vote here, and that is with their heart first and eye second...but that isn't going to change, so changing the resolution won't change someone's voting...
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:51:33 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
11/16/2005 01:22:15 AM.........03/06/2006 03:15:52 AM
Isn't there a law against raising the dead? ;-) |
So what's YOUR vote, Art? :p |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:52:55 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Cooz:
Yeah, but EVERYONE is squeezing detail into 640...I think your image is great at both resolutions...and, yeah, the higher resolution one looks better, but EVERYONE is working within the same boundries and if your image is a 10th place entry at 640, against 640 images, it would be a 10th place entry at 800...
I think that's due to the way people vote here, and that is with their heart first and eye second...but that isn't going to change, so changing the resolution won't change someone's voting... |
I still think that certain photos with less fine detail and more big bombastic shapes and colors have an advantage. There are some photos that look better at a smaller size and some that need more room so that it is not cramped up. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:58:52 PM · #179 |
I think the bandwidth issue needs to be considered.
If we raise even to 700x700 pixels, then we're looking at 490,000 pixels instead of 409,600 pixels. This represents a roughly 20% increase in data, which implies that we would have to raise the maximum filesize to 180K. This would then translate into about 20% greater demand on the site's bandwidth (not to mention storage capacity), resulting in possible slower service times and greater load times, and possibly a greater cost to the site hosts.
If we went to 800x800, that's more than a 50% increase.
I realize that this has been brought up in this thread, but I think it's important enough that it should be kept from being lost in the shuffle.
Message edited by author 2006-03-06 21:00:57. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:05:29 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by bluenova:
If Imagemagick was used to resize the uploaded photograph (automated process, easy to implement), then an option could be put on the users preferances to say wether they prefer to see the 640 or the 800 or may be even the 1024.
I think if a poll was put up to say which a user prefers the results would be 50/50, so the only solution would be to have a per user option. |
Doing this would require a lot of server overhead to do it dynamically and require a lot of disk space to do it statically. Not to mention the argument of does anyone really want the servers resizing thier photos. |
www.flickr.com I have seen does this with extreme ease and quality sizing. The server creates many sizes for you (4-5) and then the user/viewer can pick which one to view and of course 800x being the default. This is a different type of site but the resizing code remains the same principle. I in fact love it.
I support 800. I just realized we are in 2006. =P
Requiring a digital camera for photos is just as demanding on the wallet, ok I was just kidding but you see where I'm heading. ;) |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:10:00 PM · #181 |
I am in favor, and have been in favor for a very long time.
I confess I didn't read every post in this long thread, but the only convincing argument I've heard is the scrolling argument. At 1024x768, an image 800 pixels high will have to be scrolled.
What if the limit was "up to 800 wide" and "up to 640 tall?
Doesn't mean either dimension would have to be that big but it would be allowable. 640x640 would still be a fine size for a square crop. 800x600 is still the (monitor industry) standard 4x3 aspect ratio.
The second argument that is a concern is download time to vote. To keep the same ratio between max file size and pixel area, the max file size would grow to 165K, a modest 10% increase in download time. If that's a huge enough concern, leave the 150K file size limit.
But I would personally be in favor of a 10% increase in file size and would gladly suffer an extra 10% download time.
I honestly cannot see any reason why this proposal would not at least merit a trial. D&L, what say? Give it a try? |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:15:08 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
I think the bandwidth issue needs to be considered. |
My opinion is, since the poll is officially out on the mainpage, and since D&L is seriously considering this (finally, yay!), it would probably mean that they have taken into consideration the server capacity and traffic (bandwidth) and I'm sure it could be implemented without much problems.
Once again, lets give it a try, 800 pixels here we come! |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:15:13 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
The second argument that is a concern is download time to vote. To keep the same ratio between max file size and pixel area, the max file size would grow to 165K, a modest 10% increase in download time. If that's a huge enough concern, leave the 150K file size limit.
But I would personally be in favor of a 10% increase in file size and would gladly suffer an extra 10% download time.
I honestly cannot see any reason why this proposal would not at least merit a trial. D&L, what say? Give it a try? |
It's important to note that the difference in data volume between 640x640 and 640x800 (or 700x700) is roughly 20%, not 10%. The difference in data transfer rate (assuming the DPC servers can keep up with the increase in traffic) wouldn't matter much to me, but it does to some people:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I haven't got time to go through this whole thread, so what I'm saying may already have been mentioned, but I'll say it anyway. Anything that will slow down my ability to vote on a very slow dial-up connection is going to make life very difficult. I'm already missing seeing some wonderful photos since they made it impossible to vote using more than one window. I always used to make an effort to vote on every photo and this has recently become impossible. |
... especially considering the no-multiple-pages stipulation, increasing the filesize and (possibly) decreasing the transfer rate could all but shut some people down. Driving away voters--or making it impossible for them to vote without great difficulty--is exactly what this site doesn't need. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:16:41 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by yantski:
... To this I say...if your camera can't produce a quality picture at 800x800, you shouldn't be posting the pics here. ... |
My - such a wonderful sentiment. Fair play and all that. Guess we should leave participating only to the pro's eh?
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:20:22 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
The second argument that is a concern is download time to vote. To keep the same ratio between max file size and pixel area, the max file size would grow to 165K, a modest 10% increase in download time. If that's a huge enough concern, leave the 150K file size limit.
But I would personally be in favor of a 10% increase in file size and would gladly suffer an extra 10% download time.
I honestly cannot see any reason why this proposal would not at least merit a trial. D&L, what say? Give it a try? |
It's important to note that the difference in data volume between 640x640 and 640x800 (or 700x700) is roughly 20%, not 10%. The difference in data transfer rate (assuming the DPC servers can keep up with the increase in traffic) wouldn't matter much to me, but it does to some people:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I haven't got time to go through this whole thread, so what I'm saying may already have been mentioned, but I'll say it anyway. Anything that will slow down my ability to vote on a very slow dial-up connection is going to make life very difficult. I'm already missing seeing some wonderful photos since they made it impossible to vote using more than one window. I always used to make an effort to vote on every photo and this has recently become impossible. |
... especially considering the no-multiple-pages stipulation, increasing the filesize and (possibly) decreasing the transfer rate could all but shut some people down. Driving away voters--or making it impossible for them to vote without great difficulty--is exactly what this site doesn't need. |
My error. You're right. 640x800/640x640 = 125% That assumes all pictures were full size and we didn't have some 1x2 or 1x3 aspect ratio photos. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:20:37 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
... What if the limit was "up to 800 wide" and "up to 640 tall? ... |
If it goes to 800 one way, it should go both ways (personally I'd rather stay 640). Otherwise you're penalizing the entry that works best in portrait mode (see current winning images on the front page - 4 of 9 are oriented as portraits).
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:21:41 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
... What if the limit was "up to 800 wide" and "up to 640 tall? ... |
If it goes to 800 one way, it should go both ways (personally I'd rather stay 640). Otherwise you're penalizing the entry that works best in portrait mode (see current winning images on the front page - 4 of 9 are oriented as portraits). |
Portrait-oriented photographs will always appear bigger, no matter what the size. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:25:06 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
It's important to note that the difference in data volume between 640x640 and 640x800 (or 700x700) is roughly 20%, not 10%. The difference in data transfer rate (assuming the DPC servers can keep up with the increase in traffic) wouldn't matter much to me, but it does to some people |
From the poll on the mainpage, it says image size increase, no mention of file size increase... so...
increase in image size (800x800) does not necessarily means an increase in file size (Kb) |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:26:41 PM · #189 |
I already responded to the bandwidth issue earlier. Pixelsize and filesize should be seperate issues. Aka pixel size would increase, and datasize wouldn't.
800x800 @ 150kb downloads as fast as 640x640 @ 150kb. It also stores the same.
Not enough quality? When I produce a 640 image for my website the resulting size is about 45k. Only on DPC do I lower the compression to get as close to 150k as possible. My 800 images are around 65k.
Not once have I been told the compression was too much, or that the quality was bad, or that there were artifacts. Only the complete opposite. Crikey I'd even vote for LOWERING filesize and increasing pixelsize. 800x800 @ 100kb... But that's just me. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:29:35 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by jadin:
I already responded to the bandwidth issue earlier. Pixelsize and filesize should be seperate issues. Aka pixel size would increase, and datasize wouldn't.
800x800 @ 150kb downloads as fast as 640x640 @ 150kb. It also stores the same. |
yes AGREED, there are no mention of filesize (bytes) increase at all, as far as I know. Only image size (pixel) increase is being voted on. So lets not stray, people :) |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:30:55 PM · #191 |
800 pixels looks great,but easy to be stolen :-(
 |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:41:02 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
800 pixels looks great,but easy to be stolen :-( |
Auto watermark (suggestion) added to all photos posted in challenges? |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:46:14 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by ParadigmShift:
For what it's worth - I happen to work at a very large Internet company, and of course we are monitoring screen resolutions as it impacts our design and usability. We also get reports from some Internet monitoring companies, and here's the latest numbers for Internet Average of screen resolutions (order descending in percentage):
1024x768 - 52.3%
800x600 - 21.9%
1280x1024 - 9.5%
1152x864 - 3.2%
1280x800 - 1.6%
1400x1050 - 1.0%
1600x1200 - 1.0%
1400x864 - 1.0%
1280x864 - 0.9%
1280x768 - 0.4%
The tail is long, but if you look at it overall, somewhere around 78% overall run a resolution higher than 800x600. |
More importantly - 74.6% use a screen less than 800 pixels high - this means portrait images need to be scrolled, or made smaller than landscape images -neither is a good idea.
Also outside of North America dialup is relatively common and the larger filesizes needed to make 800x800 work would be a headache.
800x800 - No thanks |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:56:21 PM · #194 |
Why not leave things as they are, but with the following exception. Once you are viewing the now 640pix image, you could then click on it and a new window would open displaying the 800pix image.
This way, people with smaller resolutions could view as they do now, but people that want to view the larger image would have that option as well.
Just my thought.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:59:01 PM · #195 |
I agree that it would be annoying, and most likely detrimental to an image's placing, if we had to scroll to see an entire image. That being said, posting an image at 800x800 would still be at the discretion of the photographer, much like using USM, NeatImage, Photoshop, or Canon (take your pick). You would do so at your own risk...the best shots will still win out.
Other than that, some ultra-fancy ap that senses your screen size (or lets you set it) and adjusts the image accordingly would be nice, but I know wrought with pitfuls of image quality issues derived from auotmatically compressed images. But, if the image quality were preserved, I think that not as many could complain.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 10:04:23 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by jadin:
800x800 @ 150kb downloads as fast as 640x640 @ 150kb. It also stores the same. |
but the quality would have to be quite a bit lower, largely defeating the purpose of increasing the size. Even now, I'll save an image smaller than the maximum (e.g. 600x600) if I can gain a level of JPEG quality. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 10:16:33 PM · #197 |
I'm all for increasing the size. I only run at 1024x768 but I don't really mind scrolling, and I can just go up and scale the page to 50% if I want to see the whole image.
I say increase image size too, even though I'm on dial-up. I rarely vote entire large challenges when I'm at home.. that's what work and classes are for :) |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 10:19:22 PM · #198 |
lets move forward :p
800! 800! |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 10:32:29 PM · #199 |
My screen is 1680x1050, I'm all for it. Let's bring DPC out of the dark ages.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 10:37:24 PM · #200 |
I migrated here (and dragged a few friends along) from a site that allowed 1000 X 1200.........trust me, for the right shot, you'll scroll!! Its so worth it to get a better look!
|
|
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: 06/24/2025 08:47:07 PM EDT.
