DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> 150k file limit increase PLEASE
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 79, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/16/2004 12:42:11 PM · #1
There have been several suggestions on this forum that we should increase the maximum size of challenge entry images to 800 from 640. Although I would support such a move if it were my decision, the needed change is the low-limit on file sizes. The 150k limit on file size desperately needs upgrading to a more realistic figure such as 250k.

I understand that in the past limited bandwidth and server space created a need for drastically reduced the file sizes. Now, however, the cost of server space dropping at staggering rates, and bandwidth is going faster and faster (I did read that here in the States we arenít keeping up with the rest of the world in broadband speed increases :-( ) there is no need to be limited by such a low file size restriction.

To prove my point I just filled a 640 x 480 pixel box with a repetitive SINGLE color pattern and used the save to web option (no thumbnails or meta info). The resulting file size at highest quality was 229k. To get it down to the 150k limit I had to lower the quality setting to an 85. I would imagine that most full tonal range photos require much lower quality settings than that.

Personally, and I would dare guess most other members, would gladly pay an extra 10-20% membership fee if cost were truly the issue.

Or another solution would be to require the contestant to host his or her own photos. As long as the image was FTPed to the server before the submission deadline and not altered or removed there would be no chance of ďcheatingĒ.

11/16/2004 12:54:08 PM · #2
The real problem with file sizes is not one of server bandwidth, but of user bandwidth - those still stuck on dialup (a significant percentage still) have a tough enough time with 150k images, let along 250k ones!

Also, you may find that your gfx application isn't too hot on jpeg compression, since I rarely have to go under 90% for even the busiest of challenge entries, and even get 100% quality making 130k files when compressing simple b&w shots...
11/16/2004 01:04:42 PM · #3
I come from a web publishing/ news wire world, and 150KB is huge! People really need to learn to compress well.

Adam
11/16/2004 01:09:35 PM · #4
Originally posted by ajschmidt:

...150KB is huge! People really need to learn to compress well.


I agree. Many of the entries demonstrate amazing detail and clarity with only 150Kb, so I don't see the need to bump the file size. A larger file might make it even more tempting for others to use your work without permission. I'd MUCH rather see the portfolio space increased first.
11/16/2004 01:23:19 PM · #5
How about accepting png file format.
11/16/2004 01:37:19 PM · #6
150K is plenty... With a few exceptions, JPEG quality over 70 is just fine. Now, the 640x480 size is a different story, but that's already been beaten to death and, i understand, is not going to change.
11/16/2004 02:03:17 PM · #7
Point #1.

150kb is not huge, although it might be large enough for your needs, looking at a lot of the challenge images with compression artifacts it isnít for them. JPG compression is dependant on subject matter. Say you took a photo of a Jackson Pollack painting. The multitude of colors & patterns would make quite a large image file compared to say a photographs with a lot of a single color and little detail like a landscape with an expansive blue sky.

Point #2

I use Photoshop CS at home and Photoshop Elements 2.0 at work, so I donít think Iím using an inferior graphic application.

Point #3

I hate to sound cold, but who cares if ďa significant percentage stillĒ has dial-up connections. We are a photographic community and as such we will have larger files than say a text blog. Do you see the major online music sharing sites offer a mono 24mhz sampling rate versions of their songs for dial up users? No, of course not, so if sharing music is really important to you then you get a broadband connection.

In the same vein if photography really is a passion then maybe it is time to join the modern world and get broadband connection. If it is not available in your area then press you local officials into upgrading their infrastructure. Just the other day on CNN I saw a segment that the best economic indicator for a given area is their broadband infrastructure.
11/16/2004 02:11:14 PM · #8
150kb is acceptable for a 640 pixel filesize, but is hardly huge. When I compress my files any more than this for my portfolio, the artifacting gets commented on. And yes, I do know how to compress a file.
I would like all my portfolio items to be 150kb, but I would have room for a tiny amount of files. As I've mentioned several times on this site, I would gladly pay more for more storage room... as would loads of people I suspect.
11/16/2004 02:16:17 PM · #9
Originally posted by hyperfocal:


In the same vein if photography really is a passion then maybe it is time to join the modern world and get broadband connection. If it is not available in your area then press you local officials into upgrading their infrastructure. Just the other day on CNN I saw a segment that the best economic indicator for a given area is their broadband infrastructure.


I think you are forgetting that a good percentage of DPCers are not in the USA. "Press your local officials in the outback of Australia?"(Sorry Aussies - just trying to make a point.)

Secondarily - I'm sure there's a good possibility that many can not afford the cost of broadband.

11/16/2004 02:20:30 PM · #10
Originally posted by yurasocolov:

150K is plenty... With a few exceptions, JPEG quality over 70 is just fine.


Try summiting a photo (of any resolution) with a jpg compression of 70 to any reputable stock agency, such as Masterfile or iStock and see if they find it "just fine". You know as well as I do that they would reject it immediately.
11/16/2004 02:23:59 PM · #11
Originally posted by MrCaN:

How about accepting png file format.

This was recommended awhile back, but PNG is a lossless image format, resulting in very large file sizes relative to JPG. We'd end up with the same size images as before, but much greater bandwidth usage/download wait times for not much gain in quality or resolution.
11/16/2004 02:26:25 PM · #12
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

Try summiting a photo (of any resolution) with a jpg compression of 70 to any reputable stock agency

But this isn't a stock photo agency, its a website where images (in their original size, not recompressed samples) need to be viewed in large numbers by those voting on them. DPC is inclusive, in that it caters for the majority and most minorities, ie users on slow connections along with users with low resolution displays. Making challenge entries 250k would be prohibitive to about 20% of the DPC userbase (from the last poll), especially since there are more and more entries per challenge than ever before...
11/16/2004 02:30:51 PM · #13
Originally posted by photom:


I think you are forgetting that a good percentage of DPCers are not in the USA. "Press your local officials in the outback of Australia?"(Sorry Aussies - just trying to make a point.)

Secondarily - I'm sure there's a good possibility that many can not afford the cost of broadband.


Yes, I assumed that the majority of DPC members are outside the US. As I stated in my first posting the US is behind most of the developed world in this arena. 18th place in 2003 ~ 2nd in 1999. Also I'm no where close to being even middle class. If you can afford a high end camera, I'm sure you can afford broadband. It is a matter of priorities.
11/16/2004 02:40:21 PM · #14
Since the point that a lot of users are outside of the US and that a lot of users are on dialup still has been used many times around here, it would be curious to see the polls to actually support those statements.
11/16/2004 02:53:47 PM · #15
Originally posted by yurasocolov:

Since the point that a lot of users are outside of the US and that a lot of users are on dialup still has been used many times around here, it would be curious to see the polls to actually support those statements.

The last poll we did on this was mid July this year:

56k or lower 111
Cable / DSL 650
T1 or greater 53
814 users participated.

As you can see, approx 15% of the userbase are still restricted to dialup, which is definitely a significant group (it even includes a couple of the SC, IIRC)...
11/16/2004 02:57:18 PM · #16
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

Try summiting a photo (of any resolution) with a jpg compression of 70 to any reputable stock agency, such as Masterfile or iStock and see if they find it "just fine". You know as well as I do that they would reject it immediately.


These aren't stock photos for print. A JPG compression of 70 is mediocre for print, but overkill for web. I've saved some entries as low as 65 without a problem, and I've NEVER received a comment about JPEG artifacts.
11/16/2004 02:58:36 PM · #17
This was all discussed, and then abandoned in the last week or so.

file size thread
11/16/2004 03:20:53 PM · #18
Would 800px pictures do well with the overall web layout of DPC? I like the confort of not having to open the pictures in a new/popup window.
Already now, most portrait pictures' height doesn't fit onto one screen. I feel that a ot of a picture's effect is lost when you have to scroll first to see the bottom of it...

Message edited by author 2004-11-16 15:21:34.
11/16/2004 03:22:17 PM · #19
Originally posted by Manic:


56k or lower 111
Cable / DSL 650
T1 or greater 53
814 users participated.

As you can see, approx 15% of the userbase are still restricted to dialup, which is definitely a significant group (it even includes a couple of the SC, IIRC)...


So you are saying that 85% should be pentalized for the 15% unable or more likely unwilling to modernize? Maybe we should make all TV broadcasting B&W since a few people out there can't get or afford a color TV. It is just silly. Web content is becoming more and more unsuitable for dial up users, because the MAJORITY of consumers want better content & have a highspeed connection. The longer we make exceptions for those with equipment or connections that aren't up to current standard the slower progress will become.

Just for the heck of it I went to e-bay and randomly clicked on auctions with images. I checked ten auctions and only two had images with less than 150k, and they arenít trying to win an image contest.
11/16/2004 03:32:15 PM · #20
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

So you are saying that 85% should be penalized for the 15% unable or more likely unwilling to modernize?


So it's settled then. From now on DPC will be a Canon-only site. ;-)
11/16/2004 03:33:05 PM · #21
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/265/thumb/111547.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/265/thumb/111547.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

so you're telling me you can see compression artifacts in this photo?

it's only 128KB, so it can't possibly be anything but crap.

I've seen this image at full res on my computer, and it's marginally better than this compressed one. i don't believe for a second that we need more than 150KB.

Of course I'd use bigger images if it were all about me, but it's not.
11/16/2004 03:34:31 PM · #22
Does a higher file size help the dSLR users more then it would for people still using point & shoot, prosumers, etc or would it still be an even playing field?
11/16/2004 03:34:44 PM · #23
Hyperfocal, can you post examples of a photo that's under 150 and a copy of the same that's over so that we can see the difference?
11/16/2004 03:39:53 PM · #24
Originally posted by ajschmidt:

I come from a web publishing/ news wire world, and 150KB is huge! People really need to learn to compress well.

Adam


Some folks, (Like myself), are not involved with the web publishing/news wire world. How about a tutorial or "how'd they do that" on the subject?
11/16/2004 03:46:09 PM · #25
Originally posted by Manic:

As you can see, approx 15% of the userbase are still restricted to dialup, which is definitely a significant group (it even includes a couple of the SC, IIRC)...


Easy then, beat it with technical means. Implement on the fly recompression for people that desire that. In the preferences make another choice: see pictures in high quality or recompress with lower quality. For those that choose to use it, make the image.php, or whatever it's called, pipe the pic through imagemagik or libgd prior to serving it out. Or resize it, or both.

Yes, it's additional processing needed on the server, but since it's only 15% of the users at most that would want it, i doubt the increase would be serious. Besides, i would venture to guess that most dialup users would not use such a feature even if it existed, opting to wait and see higher image quality instead.

In return for increased cpu demand, though, 15% would have a choice, and the other 85% would be happy.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 02/18/2020 02:37:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/18/2020 02:37:13 AM EST.