Let's leave it like it is.... - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/14/2005 04:57:44 PM · #101

Originally posted by nards656:

Okay, I'm taking this to be "expert testimony", which is typically regarded as testimony. Bear, please take no offense at this, but no one yet seems willing to do the work to put forth some proof for everyone to see. There is lots of discussion, but until someone at least edits four pictures to try to prove a point, it seems to me that they are standing only on expert testimony rather than evidence.

I believe your statements. Its not that I don't think more detail can be shown. What I'm trying to convince someone to prove is that this "missing" detail makes a difference - any difference - in the score that photo receives.

The opportunity is wide open to show me just how much of a caveman dork I am. Please.

You're seriously NEVER resized a picture to 640x480 and realized that it just doesn't looke the same or even good? Come on, you can't be serious, can you?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/14/2005 05:05:11 PM · #102

Originally posted by nards656:

The opportunity is wide open to show me just how much of a caveman dork I am. Please.

I just grabbed a fairly detailed image from my current work; it's not the best example, but I don't have the backup HD on-site (I keep it in a fireproof safe elsewhere) so this will have to do.

Working from the original, RAW conversion at full size, I used Resize Pro to make an 800-pixel and a 640-pixel version. I then cropped off the bottom of the 800-pixel version to meet the DPC 640-pixel maximum (had to do that). The uncropped image is 800x530, the cropped is 640x530, so the resolution is the same as if it were being displayed at 800x530. For comparison, the other is 640x430. Both were saved at 150Kb. There is NO filesize increase here, just a dimensional increase. The 640 saves at quality 78, the 800 at quality 62. The quality is lowish because there is so much detail.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

12/14/2005 05:08:47 PM · #103

Originally posted by nards656:

Brent - this is a totally unsarcastic remark, so please understand it that way. I visited your website at //www.brentwardphoto.com/ - very impressed. Extremely high quality photography, nice site, etc. I must confess, though, that I was absolutely baffled to see the size of the images in your portfolio. They honestly look to be 400 or maybe 500 pix per side?

Again, I don't mean to be a jerk when I present that. I'm just very confused as to why you seem to feel that images need to be 800x600 on DPC, but you feel no need to present them at that level on your own site, over which you have complete control. Image theft isn't a problem, you've either used flash or scripting to prevent that fairly strongly, so I'm baffled.

Image theft is the issue. Thanks for the compliment! Also, many of my clients are corporate, so they have small monitors. If I made it for other photographers, it would be based on 1280 x 1024.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 17:11:27.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

12/14/2005 05:25:46 PM · #104

Originally posted by bear_music:

Okay. I see a reasonable amount more detail in the grass. The sky looks worse, primarily due to haloing around the clouds from the compression. I like the colors better in the 640 version, not sure what's different there.

This brings me to believe that there's perhaps a fallacy in the statement that equal quality between 800 and 640 can be maintained at 150K. If I, with my crappy stuff, can see a difference, I'm sure all the photo quality purists will see more. Thus, what does the 800 gain?

But that's not the entire issue. I admit, I do see more details in the grass. My thesis, however, requires 4 images, with an obvious flip-flop in "perceived goodness" because of the differing sizes. I can't verify that here because there's only one set of images.

Bear - thank you for step one.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

12/14/2005 07:59:52 PM · #105

Robert - You've got some sensor dust pestering you don't ya? ;^)

I do see more detail in the larger image, but the aspect ratio now appears to be off so it's hard to compare the two. I can also see where sharpening would be more of an issue at the larger size (easier to go overboard I'm thinking).

Thanks for putting those up to look at!

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by nards656:
The opportunity is wide open to show me just how much of a caveman dork I am. Please.

I just grabbed a fairly detailed image from my current work; it's not the best example, but I don't have the backup HD on-site (I keep it in a fireproof safe elsewhere) so this will have to do.

Working from the original, RAW conversion at full size, I used Resize Pro to make an 800-pixel and a 640-pixel version. I then cropped off the bottom of the 800-pixel version to meet the DPC 640-pixel maximum (had to do that). The uncropped image is 800x530, the cropped is 640x530, so the resolution is the same as if it were being displayed at 800x530. For comparison, the other is 640x430. Both were saved at 150Kb. There is NO filesize increase here, just a dimensional increase. The 640 saves at quality 78, the 800 at quality 62. The quality is lowish because there is so much detail.

R.

12/14/2005 08:06:22 PM · #106

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I do see more detail in the larger image, but the aspect ratio now appears to be off so it's hard to compare the two. I can also see where sharpening would be more of an issue at the larger size (easier to go overboard I'm thinking).

Thanks for putting those up to look at!

It's not an aspect ratio thing, he posted a square section at the same "size" as the other, but is actually a crop from an 800x600 version of the same picture.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

12/14/2005 08:22:47 PM · #107

No. That can't be right. The image on the left contains the same data left to right as the larger image, but not the same length-wise. They're different. The one on the left is more compressed width-wise because of this.

Compare the new one (512 x 427) on the left to the original larger (640 x 532) one. Both now have an aspect ratio of 1.20.

edit to add - you need to pull each image up in a separate window to see the difference as the thumbnails are the same size.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 20:29:04.

jab119

12/14/2005 08:27:49 PM · #108

if images are allowed to go up to 800xwhat ever, then people will complain that their images are not the best they can be because of the 150K file size limit.

a new debate will rage through the forums about I need more file size because my 800xwhat ever image looks like crap because im forced to reduce the quality of it down to 68.2% to meet the 150K file limit.

its going to be a never ending battle.

People just cant seem to understand it cost money to run this site. to allow larger file sizes to match the larger image sizes will greatly increase the bandwidth needed to run the site.

$25 per paying member, will this go up to $30 or $35 a year

google ads for those that are not payed members to help with the cost of running the site. Im Glad I dont have to see UGLY unwanted ads

whats next???? everyone gets to see UGLY ads on this site.

James

12/14/2005 08:35:37 PM · #109

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Image theft is the issue. Thanks for the compliment! Also, many of my clients are corporate, so they have small monitors. If I made it for other photographers, it would be based on 1280 x 1024.

So then you concede that it's reasonable to be concerned about image theft and the ability for viewers to be able to display images on a standard-resolution (1024x768) monitor?

I believe those were two of the concerns I said were preventing an 800 pixel limit.

~Terry

12/14/2005 08:37:38 PM · #110

Originally posted by jab119:

Those ads pay for most everyones TV too, we TiVo them out, but they still pay for it. Ultimately we still pay because it increases the cost of the products from that company to cover their Adv. expenses.

Unless they raise mebership rates, and charge anyone who wants to vote and have access to the forums at least some money, Ads (google or otherwise) are the only way to go. They're already being implemented for those not logged/registered BTW.

12/14/2005 08:39:43 PM · #111

Originally posted by jab119:

My guess would be $50 or more. A 67% increase in file size would bring a proportionate increase in bandwidth needs... plus they would have to compensate for the loss in members resulting from the price increase.

NOTE that this is entirely my own speculation. I don't have any numbers to base this on, and have not discussed these guesses with Drew, Langdon, or anyone else.

~Terry

12/14/2005 08:44:12 PM · #112

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Image theft is the issue. Thanks for the compliment! Also, many of my clients are corporate, so they have small monitors. If I made it for other photographers, it would be based on 1280 x 1024.

So then you concede that it's reasonable to be concerned about image theft and the ability for viewers to be able to display images on a standard-resolution (1024x768) monitor?

I believe those were two of the concerns I said were preventing an 800 pixel limit.

~Terry

12/14/2005 08:48:38 PM · #113

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Image theft is the issue. Thanks for the compliment! Also, many of my clients are corporate, so they have small monitors. If I made it for other photographers, it would be based on 1280 x 1024.

So then you concede that it's reasonable to be concerned about image theft and the ability for viewers to be able to display images on a standard-resolution (1024x768) monitor?

I believe those were two of the concerns I said were preventing an 800 pixel limit.

~Terry

?

Not all the other photographers on this site have the ability to display a 1280x1024 image, or even a 600x800 image, on their monitors. Not even a majority do. That's a statement of fact.

~Terry

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 20:49:18.

12/14/2005 08:56:11 PM · #114

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Image theft is the issue. Thanks for the compliment! Also, many of my clients are corporate, so they have small monitors. If I made it for other photographers, it would be based on 1280 x 1024.

So then you concede that it's reasonable to be concerned about image theft and the ability for viewers to be able to display images on a standard-resolution (1024x768) monitor?

I believe those were two of the concerns I said were preventing an 800 pixel limit.

~Terry

?

Not all the other photographers on this site have the ability to display a 1280x1024 image, or even a 600x800 image, on their monitors. Not even a majority do. That's a statement of fact.

~Terry

HEY NOW! I was just replying to your comment about conceding and pointed out what I would do if I was designing a site for photographers. And for the record, just because someone owns a camera doesn't mean they are a photographer. ;o)

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 20:57:31.

12/14/2005 09:06:26 PM · #115

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Not all the other photographers on this site have the ability to display a 1280x1024 image, or even a 600x800 image, on their monitors. Not even a majority do. That's a statement of fact.

~Terry

HEY NOW! I was just replying to your comment about conceding and pointed out what I would do if I was designing a site for photographers. And for the record, just because someone owns a camera doesn't mean they are a photographer. ;o)

I consider most of the users here to be photographers, since they are taking photographs and submitting them. Few are professional photographers, and not all are good photographers, but that's a different question.

For better or worse, the core of our member base is the hobbyist photographer. This does not mean that we should ignore the needs of the professional photographers, but at the same time it would be insane to ignore the needs of the majority of our users. For better or worse, an increase in image size (for challenge entries, at least) would impair more users than it would benefit.

Your point about the limits on portfolio images, however, is well-taken. I'll bring that up on an internal discussion. No promises that anything will come of it, but it definitely merits discussion.

~Terry

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 21:07:57.

12/14/2005 09:06:34 PM · #116

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Not all the other photographers on this site have the ability to display a 1280x1024 image, or even a 600x800 image, on their monitors. Not even a majority do. That's a statement of fact.

~Terry

So we're pandering to the "I bought my PC in 1995 and it works just fine" club? Come on! You guys can't be serious, can you? I realize it sucks to be them, but I simply can't believe that so many of these people are out there who are actual PAID CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS (not just joe blow "I like to comment" dude) who are still stuck on old crappy monitors/pc's/videocards or whatever and using dial-up. I have a hand me down PC that can display 1600x1200 (but it's a 17" so...)

I seem to remeber when I first started on here someone relating a story about going into their local photo club and having to convince all the older non-digital people to change their ways. I kind of feel like that, you guys aren't even examining these issues anymore. You've set up a rigid "we site suggestion/comment spam filter" in your own heads and not considering things with a fresh point of view.

No, I am not making an "elitist" accusation, nor was I before. I am making an establishment/staus quo accusation, and I stand by it.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

12/14/2005 09:09:45 PM · #117

Originally posted by wavelength:

I bought my computer in 2004, and the display is 1024x768 max.

~Terry

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 21:11:12.

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/14/2005 09:09:52 PM · #118

Bear has got a point.
It sounds logical.

saracat

Pentax K10D

12/14/2005 09:10:35 PM · #119

Why is it so difficult to believe that some of us can come up with $25 for membership but can't manage to come up with a couple hundred $$ to upgrade our other equipment? Heck - I couldn't even come up with the $25. My membership is thanks to tolovemoon.

Canon EOS-20D

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

12/14/2005 09:10:48 PM · #120

Originally posted by wavelength:

I seem to remeber when I first started on here someone relating a story about going into their local photo club and having to convince all the older non-digital people to change their ways. I kind of feel like that, you guys aren't even examining these issues anymore.

Haha, that was my story. And I just got my computer last year and it still doesn't do more than 1024. :(

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/14/2005 09:17:22 PM · #121

Originally posted by mk:

I just got my computer last year and it still doesn't do more than 1024. :(

Time to upgrade that video card? ;)
Or get a higher definition monitor.
Go ask santa :p

12/14/2005 09:18:03 PM · #122

:D

:sneaks out door:

12/14/2005 09:28:19 PM · #123

Originally posted by mk:

Haha, that was my story. And I just got my computer last year and it still doesn't do more than 1024. :(

Okay wow, that's cool I guess. I just thought that all PC's/Macs sold in the last 2-3 years would do better than that. My presumption is wrong I guess. :P