Time to upgrade image size from 640 to 800

10/25/2004 11:50:18 PM · #3

Hey Martin while I agree with you that bigger is better I believe this will strain the available resources unless a new revamping in memory is considered. Multiply the needed extra memory per member and a price increase will be required. DPC certainly has the best price in the internet but I hear some folks complain. I am willing to pay up whatever, but that is only my sentiment.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

10/25/2004 11:51:58 PM · #4

One small problem...

Even if nearly all users set their monitors to 1024x768 (whih is disputable), an image which is 800 pixels in the vertical dimension will not fit on the screen.

This also ignores the increased bandwidth and storage burdens that would be imposed, as increasing the maximum image size would add pressure for a corresponding increase in maximum file size.

-Terry

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

10/25/2004 11:52:01 PM · #5

We could go to a max size of 800 pixels on the long side and keep the max file size at 150k though. Most images will display fine at 800 pixels and 150k.

skylen

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

10/25/2004 11:53:44 PM · #6

Hear, hear! I agree. On my 1600x1200 monitor, even the biggest DPC images only take up a tiny part of the screen.

Also, the maximum file size would have to be increased significantly (350KB? some experimentation may be necessary), because otherwise the 800xNNN images will look like crap.

Hard drive space is dirt cheap, so DPC can't complain that they're short of space.

If dialup users complain that the increased file sizes make voting slow, maybe add an option to show slightly scaled down images for users who enable an option for it.

EDIT: dang, in the time it took me to type this, most of this has already been said. Oh well.

Message edited by author 2004-10-25 23:55:03.

10/25/2004 11:57:03 PM · #7

Originally posted by skylen:

Server-grade hard disk space is not so cheap, especially considering that the mechanics of RAID require redundant space, so you need to have more space than is actually required for data.

Also to be considered is that as storage capacity requirements scale, so must backup and bandwidth capacity as well. All of these have significant costs associated with them.

Also, surely you can't believe that the majority of users are (or should be) running at 1600x1200?

-Terry

Message edited by author 2004-10-25 23:57:45.

skylen

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

10/26/2004 12:04:04 AM · #8

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Sure, not as cheap as a plain Seagate 300GB SATA drive, but look at gmail, the Wayback Machine (archive.org), etc. Sizes are increasing.

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Also, surely you can't believe that the majority of users are (or should be) running at 1600x1200?

-Terry

True enough. But I can't see doing serious photo editing on a 1024x768 display or smaller. I'd guess that most of the most _serious_ users of DPC have higher resolution displays.

I suppose we won't get our higher-res images anytime soon.. :( but I still want them.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/26/2004 12:05:53 AM · #9

Originally posted by skylen:

The "serious" users are not the only ones voting, nor the only ones paying the costs of the site. ;-)

-Terry

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

10/26/2004 12:06:42 AM · #10

I think 640x480 is too small as well. I had a shot in mind for the free study that just loses it's impact at 640x480.

I am running 1280x1024 across two monitors. My laptop is only 1024x768, but it can work in portrait or landscape mode at the touch of a button.

alsatia

Canon PowerShot G5

10/26/2004 12:08:50 AM · #11

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Also, surely you can't believe that the majority of users are (or should be) running at 1600x1200?

I'd bet that the majority of users have computers that aren't even capable of running at 1600x1200. My maximum resolution is 1024x768, and due to the taskbar and the browser menus vertical images already require a tiny bit of scrolling. Larger ones would make the voting process quite painful.

Maverick

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

10/26/2004 12:09:08 AM · #12

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by skylen:
True enough. But I can't see doing serious photo editing on a 1024x768 display or smaller. I'd guess that most of the most _serious_ users of DPC have higher resolution displays.

I suppose we won't get our higher-res images anytime soon.. :( but I still want them.

The "serious" users are not the only ones voting, nor the only ones paying the costs of the site. ;-)

-Terry

Some of us serious users also have bad eyesight and don't like the squinting involved with resolutions above 1024x768 = P maybe its just me.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/26/2004 12:10:14 AM · #13

We've also already had some problems with photos being "stolen" and mis-used, and increasing the dimensions will make such activity both more attractive and more effective.

billmorton

Canon EOS-20D

10/26/2004 12:13:05 AM · #14

Bigger pictures!
Bandwidth and space is dirt cheap. Even I have a 1TB Raid 5 ... its not expensive.

AmiYuy

Nikon Coolpix 8700

10/26/2004 12:15:00 AM · #15

Originally posted by Maverick:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by skylen:
True enough. But I can't see doing serious photo editing on a 1024x768 display or smaller. I'd guess that most of the most _serious_ users of DPC have higher resolution displays.

I suppose we won't get our higher-res images anytime soon.. :( but I still want them.

The "serious" users are not the only ones voting, nor the only ones paying the costs of the site. ;-)

-Terry

Some of us serious users also have bad eyesight and don't like the squinting involved with resolutions above 1024x768 = P maybe its just me.

Squinting? I only had to squint when I tried to put my old computer on 1024x768 when the monitor couldn't handle it so I had to go back to 800x600. I love my 1024x768 laptop screen though...

I have been a serious user for awhile and only in the past two months did I get a computer capable of larger resolutions.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

We've also already had some problems with photos being "stolen" and mis-used, and increasing the dimensions will make such activity both more attractive and more effective.

Ditto.

10/26/2004 12:17:58 AM · #16

Originally posted by billmorton:

Bigger pictures!
Bandwidth and space is dirt cheap. Even I have a 1TB Raid 5 ... its not expensive.

Do you know what the bandwith requirements are for a site of this size?

-Terry

skylen

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

10/26/2004 12:19:20 AM · #17

Originally posted by GeneralE:

We've also already had some problems with photos being "stolen" and mis-used, and increasing the dimensions will make such activity both more attractive and more effective.

It would be up to the photographer whether or not to actually choose to submit a higher-resolution photo. No one is forcing them to.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/26/2004 12:19:23 AM · #18

Originally posted by skylen:

Sure, not as cheap as a plain Seagate 300GB SATA drive, but look at gmail, the Wayback Machine (archive.org), etc. Sizes are increasing.

Urm, google was started with $1 million in venture capital funding, raised about $25 million in the second round and just went through an IPO. Storage ain't cheap. archive.org is a 501(c)(3) public nonprofit charity - they'll take a donation if you like too.

I know in my case, running at 1024x768 on the machine I'd normally vote from, an 800 pixel image obviously cannot be seen without scrolling. I suspect many people viewing are running 800x600 or 1024x768. Amazingly enough actual real work can be done on a 1024x768 or smaller screen.

For this to be practical - the majority of users would have to be running at higher than 1024x768. That would seem to still be a few years off.

Some stats from 3 days ago

Summary

A small majority of users have 1024x768 and higher. A large minority have 800x600. A very small and shrinking number, ~1%, have 640x480. These numbers do not include those who browse using web appliances.

Or here, which shows that this proposal would mean that 90% of typical web surfers would not be able to view images properly that were 800 pixels high.

Message edited by author 2004-10-26 00:26:00.

10/26/2004 12:21:14 AM · #19

Originally posted by skylen:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
We've also already had some problems with photos being "stolen" and mis-used, and increasing the dimensions will make such activity both more attractive and more effective.

It would be up to the photographer whether or not to actually choose to submit a higher-resolution photo. No one is forcing them to.

And we all know how well sub-maximum picture sizes do in the voting...

-Terry

Maverick

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

10/26/2004 12:23:59 AM · #20

Originally posted by AmiYuy:

My computer is capable of up to 1600x1200. I have a 19" monitor. 1024x768 with a refresh of 120 Hz is as high res as I can comfortably view for reading text, etc. Too much eye strain at higher resolutions. Again, could be just me.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/26/2004 12:27:25 AM · #21

Originally posted by Maverick:

Originally posted by AmiYuy:

Squinting? I only had to squint when I tried to put my old computer on 1024x768 when the monitor couldn't handle it so I had to go back to 800x600. I love my 1024x768 laptop screen though...

I have been a serious user for awhile and only in the past two months did I get a computer capable of larger resolutions.

My computer is capable of up to 1600x1200. I have a 19" monitor. 1024x768 with a refresh of 120 Hz is as high res as I can comfortably view for reading text, etc. Too much eye strain at higher resolutions. Again, could be just me.

I presume you know that you can set a higher resolution, and then change the size of the default system font and sizes of items such as system tray. That way, you are using a higher res, but the text is the same size you like.

saintnicholas_25

Sony DSC-P73

10/26/2004 12:28:15 AM · #22

1600 x 1200 looks like crap, on my 17" monitor - you need binoculars to see what your doing - i can't believe anyone would work on a resolution the big

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/26/2004 12:28:36 AM · #23

Originally posted by Maverick:

You then can use an optical resolution compensatory device, a.k.a. reading glasses ...

10/26/2004 12:28:59 AM · #24

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I have tried this, and found that in practice many programs are poorly designed and do not work properly with large fonts enabled. A surprising number of programs draw dialog boxes to fixed sizes, and the buttons end up outside the box and inaccessible.

-Terry

Maverick