| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2006 01:48:39 PM · #26 |
I'd be the first in line to support a larger size... but until the vast majority are viewing on screens larger than 1024x768, it can't happen. The 720px by 720px size is doable, if and only if:
- The voting page is redesigned to optimize vertical space
- The user puts their browser into "full screen" mode while voting |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 01:51:28 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
... A vote was taken sometime back and the majority voted to increase the allowed size to 800 X 800. ... |
44% voted for no change, 50% voted for max 800 x 800, remainder was in-between. Results here => 640 x 640 Poll
edit to add - Results of the poll, including a breakdown of monitor screen sizes actually being used by DPCr's, can be viewed in this thread (see 1st post put up by  langdon) => 640x640 Restriction Poll Results
Message edited by author 2006-10-23 13:57:48. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 01:58:06 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I'd like to see it increased: I'd much prefer 800x600 as the limit. Note that by limiting height to 600, you allow bigger shots but don't get into the vertical issue some people are worried about. |
Do that and vertical shots will be SMALLER than they are now, as would be square-cropped shots...
R. |
Yes, so we could easily do 800x640 to accommodate the current crop of verticals (which I do love, myself!)
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:06:06 PM · #29 |
Actually, the breakdown was:
No Change: 395, or 35.5%
700x700: 130, or 11.7%
800x700: 136 or 12.2%
800x800: 451 or 40.6%
So...
- Clearly the majority wanted "some change"
- Clearly more folks wanted 800x800 than "no change."
- We could hypothesize that, given the choice only between 800x800 and "no change" the majority may well have supported the change.
Still, even though the majority (including moi) might support a change to 800x800, we have to keep the best interest of the entire site formost in our minds. The constraints of 1024x768 will, for better or worse, constrain us for some time. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:09:13 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I'd like to see it increased: I'd much prefer 800x600 as the limit. Note that by limiting height to 600, you allow bigger shots but don't get into the vertical issue some people are worried about. |
Do that and vertical shots will be SMALLER than they are now, as would be square-cropped shots...
R. |
Yes, so we could easily do 800x640 to accommodate the current crop of verticals (which I do love, myself!) |
Current verticals are approximately 640x450 (varies with image aspect ratio); that's +/- 288,000 total pixels.
640x800= 512,000 total pixels.
That's a HUGE size advantage to give to horizontal images...
R. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:20:59 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Actually, the breakdown was: ... |
I need a new calculator (oops!) :D Thanks for the clarification kirbic. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:31:28 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'd be the first in line to support a larger size... but until the vast majority are viewing on screens larger than 1024x768, it can't happen. The 720px by 720px size is doable, if and only if:
- The voting page is redesigned to optimize vertical space
- The user puts their browser into "full screen" mode while voting |
Succinct, to the point and right on the mark!
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 05:06:06 PM · #33 |
You know, back in 2002 the majority of people were still working with 800x600 screens. Back then I never saw any arguments about the 640px size*** and viewing it on 600px height monitors.
The last poll about this showed these resolutions:
324 users with 1024x768
211 users with 1280x1024
46 users with 1152x864
44 users with 1280x800
38 users with 1600x1200
37 users with 1680x1050
24 users with 1400x1050
23 users with 800x600
21 users with 1280x960
17 users with 1280x854
16 users with 1440x900
14 users with 1920x1200
* Ignoring a few odd resolutions with less than 5 users
So basically most people in the last four years went from 800x600 to at least 1024x768 or higher. That's an 168px increase in resolution height. But an 80px increase in picture height is a big issue now because of resolution?
I am still at 1024x768 at the moment, but on all sites but DPC I now (since 4 months or so) publish 720 to 800px pictures. DPC is lagging behind.
*** If my memory is correct I do remember a short period where the vertical limit was 480px? Or was that another site. I'm getting old by net standards...
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 05:17:29 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
* Ignoring a few odd resolutions with less than 5 users[/i] |
I guess I'm quite odd... 2048x1536 ;-)
Originally posted by Azrifel:
So basically most people in the last four years went from 800x600 to at least 1024x768 or higher. That's an 168px increase in resolution height. But an 80px increase in picture height is a big issue now because of resolution?
I am still at 1024x768 at the moment, but on all sites but DPC I now (since 4 months or so) publish 720 to 800px pictures. DPC is lagging behind. |
We'll continue to reassess, and we will make changes as appropriate. Because voting is so important to our site, we're especially sensitive to things that could skew voter opinion. For that reason, we're unlikely to adopt a cutting-edge approach.
Originally posted by Azrifel:
*** If my memory is correct I do remember a short period where the vertical limit was 480px? Or was that another site. I'm getting old by net standards... |
Haha, I'm old by any standards ;-)
OK, not quite old, but feeling it some days!
Actually, it's always been 640x640, AFAICR (As Far As I Can Remember) |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 05:23:20 PM · #35 |
| I'm with Mr Saberi on this one... 720px needs to be implemented.. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 05:34:08 PM · #36 |
Possibly fodder for a meaningful poll on the front page?
What resolution are you running at
640x480
800x600
1024x768 or greater
Don't Know
Don't Care |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 05:36:03 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Possibly fodder for a meaningful poll on the front page?
What resolution are you running at
640x480
800x600
1024x768 or greater
Don't Know
Don't Care |
Been Done! |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 05:48:07 PM · #38 |
Bah.
Why is scrolling down such a concern anyway? I run at 1600x1200 at the minimum on all my machines. If you are running at that resolution, odds are it is to have multiple windows open at once. I've never run my browser (or anything else) at full screen anyway so I end up scrolling a little bit for the portrait shots anyway.
I do agree though, the size limit bump would be even better and I'd certainly be willing to pay an extra dollar or two or ten to defray the (increasingly small) cost of additional storage. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 06:00:35 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
*** If my memory is correct I do remember a short period where the vertical limit was 480px? Or was that another site. I'm getting old by net standards... |
Haha, I'm old by any standards ;-)
OK, not quite old, but feeling it some days!
Actually, it's always been 640x640, AFAICR (As Far As I Can Remember) |
I looked it up with in the wayback internet archive. :)
Bit of a pity that it tries to combine the old site with the new look.
May 31 2002 (a few months before I joined) there was indeed no restriction on height, but on crop:
Originally posted by End of May 2002 DPC Rules:
Photographs must be follow these standards for submission:
Dimension: 640x480 / 480x640 or 640x427 / 427x640 -- No borders or padding.
|
I just knew there was something with that. :)
Message edited by author 2006-10-23 18:00:41.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 06:50:08 PM · #40 |
silly little mini that i'm on a good share of the time is 1024x600
& I have to scroll for everything .. not too big of a deal
(. except the key board is to small to type on .) |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:06:36 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
one discussion is here
and a second is here.
I think we even did a poll on this not too long ago. The consensus seemed to be to leave the dimensions as they are. |
Yea! |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:09:45 AM · #42 |
| Seems like a lot of the more expensive camera owners want a higher resolution. |
|
|
|
10/27/2006 03:55:48 PM · #43 |
| Speaking of the irritation of having to scroll down, how much longer is the poll going to be running? It takes that much longer to scroll that poll off the page so I can feed my update button addiction. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 07:26:42 AM · #44 |
| the title of this thread is sort of like the spam e-mail that I have been getting over the last 3 years. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 07:59:22 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Speaking of the irritation of having to scroll down, how much longer is the poll going to be running? It takes that much longer to scroll that poll off the page so I can feed my update button addiction. |
I agree....I reckon that once you have answered the poll it should move down to below the challenge entries.
Oops...sorry for hijack...!
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 07:01:37 PM · #46 |
| How about having the poll always below the update button. And DPC should sell a special mouse with an update button built right in. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 09:11:57 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Falc:
No !
No change is needed. |
Echos my opinion. |
|
