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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> 640x640 Restriction Poll Results
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 228, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/17/2006 11:52:13 AM · #126
Originally posted by posthumous:

Going from 600x600 to 800x800 increases each dimension by 33%. It increases the size of the image by 78%.

Sorry for my braindead comment. Going from 640x640 to 800x800 increases each dimension by 20%. My point is that the actual size (as in area) of the image is going to increase by much more than that, 64%. The change to the viewer is much more significant than 20%.

And F11 does not allow me to see an image 800 pixels high without scrolling. It would still exclude me from this site. Nor would I trust software to auto-resize the picture.

Those against the 640 limit have less at stake than those against the 800 limit.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 11:52:52.
03/17/2006 11:52:21 AM · #127
I thought I read in a forum post some time ago about stats on monitor size that people are using on this site. Couldn't find it in previous Polls.

Could be a factor in this debate. Is 17" or 19" the current standard for DPC'rs? I would think 19" but don't want to make that assumption.
03/17/2006 11:53:34 AM · #128
Originally posted by Sonifo:

And is it just me or is everyones face smashed in the pictures because of the 1280x1024?


It's a matter of aspect ratio; not all monitors have the same proportions, just as not all prints have the same proportions. Some monitors have a much "squarere" display, some of the newer ones especially are proportionally much wider. If you dial in a resolution designed for a squarish screen into a wider screen format, the images will look squashed.

As for the "tiny type", it's a function of screen real estate; on my 22 inch monitor, 1600x1200 is perfectly readable (by me at least) but in a 19 inch screen it would be too small. Each pixel represents 1/1600th of the horizontal display, so the type is physically smaller on the smaller screen.

In your internet browser preferences you can set relative type sizes, so it's possible to up the resolution and still maintain the same physical type size, to a point.

R.
03/17/2006 11:54:50 AM · #129
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Just for comparison's sake; here's a shot from this morning at 640 pixels and 150Kb:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Same shot at 700 pixels and 250Kb here.

Robt.


You know, really, I don't think there is a large difference here. Running 1920x1200, I see a "smaller" picture than 98% of people here. I don't think the increase to 700 pixels brings out detail I'm missing.

I do think that a poll which would favor changing should look more like 75-80% of people wanting a change rather than the 50-60% it currently is.

EDIT: Ok, I went back and actually did the numbers, it turns out 76% of people do want a change, so my point is moot. I'm happy either way. I can see 800x800 without scrolling.

I do think a vertical voting bar on the right side would be a very interesting idea. Kirbic is clearly thinking logically when he says we merely need to maximize the vertical space. What if for the voting page we, *gasp*, moved the dpchallenge bar to the bottom?

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 11:57:11.
03/17/2006 11:57:20 AM · #130
I don`t care about the height, just want more width.
800x640 would be great.
03/17/2006 11:57:27 AM · #131
Originally posted by langdon:

To put things in perspective, view this image that is 800 pixels tall and see how you feel.


Well, for comparison's sake. I have to scroll to see your name Langdon. In fact, I imagine I'd have to scroll down to vote for each & ever image.

I'm at 1680x1050, a resolution that I think few are able to enjoy having access too. And my laptop is 1440x. Still, higher than many people.

I really do not want to scroll down to vote each time.

I would love to see five image at a time load with the option to vote on batches of 5.

- Saj
03/17/2006 11:58:05 AM · #132
Originally posted by marbo:

I don`t care about the height, just want more width.
800x640 would be great.


I might go for an 800 max width and 640x max height.
03/17/2006 11:59:40 AM · #133
do you think it's fair to handicap all shots done in portrait?
03/17/2006 12:05:14 PM · #134
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You know, really, I don't think there is a large difference here. Running 1920x1200, I see a "smaller" picture than 98% of people here. I don't think the increase to 700 pixels brings out detail I'm missing.


I quite agree. You'll notice I'm not advocating any change in my post; I just happen to have an eyefetch account, and they do 700 pixels/250 kb, so... The quality differences on this sort of a shot, with a lot of textured detail, are minimal. These are the kinds of shots that concern me the most, because the look least like my full-size originals.

My point, if I have one, is that a change from 640 to 700 is basically meaningless, even WITH 250Kb to play with. The quality settings, using save for web, were 72% and 88%, for what it's worth.

Robt.
03/17/2006 12:05:48 PM · #135
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Just for comparison's sake; here's a shot from this morning at 640 pixels and 150Kb:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Same shot at 700 pixels and 250Kb here.

Robt.

Edit to add; you can compare 250kb to 150kb download times by clicking these links, as well as screen-size issues.


On dial up -- (33.6Kbps atm), the first image took almost a minute to load. The second took almost 2. I couldn't see a huge difference in the *quality,* though admittedly, there was a tiny bit. Not sure if that is the file size causing it or the dimensions. Bear, what would that same picture look like at 700 pixels and 150Kb?
03/17/2006 12:06:49 PM · #136
Originally posted by theSaj:



I would love to see five image at a time load with the option to vote on batches of 5.

- Saj


That's a whole 'nuther thread. ;)
03/17/2006 12:09:45 PM · #137
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by nards656:

... please don't tell me to shut up and go away, okay? Thanks.

Never did. You're welcome.


Someone else basically did. Didn't mean to point that at you, sorry.
03/17/2006 12:10:21 PM · #138
Originally posted by kyebosh:

do you think it's fair to handicap all shots done in portrait?


At our 640x640 standard, anything other than a true square image is already handicapped to some degree. 640x640 looks huge compared to 640x 490 OR 490x640. That's why so many entries are relatively square crops compared to the aspect ratio the camera produces.

R.
03/17/2006 12:11:16 PM · #139
I say let those who want it have their silly 800x800 images, but keep the 150kb restriction, THEN see how much they like it.
03/17/2006 12:12:08 PM · #140
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

do you think it's fair to handicap all shots done in portrait?


At our 640x640 standard, anything other than a true square image is already handicapped to some degree. 640x640 looks huge compared to 640x 490 OR 490x640. That's why so many entries are relatively square crops compared to the aspect ratio the camera produces.

R.

show me a digital camera that shoots a square image though. You're forced to crop to get that square... not something i'm especially fond of doing unless it's absolutely necessary.

however that wasn't really the point of my comment. It just favors landscape over portrait.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 12:13:33.
03/17/2006 12:16:46 PM · #141
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Just for comparison's sake; here's a shot from this morning at 640 pixels and 150Kb:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Same shot at 700 pixels and 250Kb here.

Robt.

Edit to add; you can compare 250kb to 150kb download times by clicking these links, as well as screen-size issues.


On dial up -- (33.6Kbps atm), the first image took almost a minute to load. The second took almost 2. I couldn't see a huge difference in the *quality,* though admittedly, there was a tiny bit. Not sure if that is the file size causing it or the dimensions. Bear, what would that same picture look like at 700 pixels and 150Kb?


700 Pixels at 150 Kb here.

R.
03/17/2006 12:18:02 PM · #142
Wait `til someone posts that they are going to take a point off the score of every image that they have to scroll to see, and then you'll hear some whining. ;)

03/17/2006 12:19:33 PM · #143
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...76% of people do want a change


Or at least they think they do. From what I've read, people want larger file sizes and/or higher resolutions because they think they're being voted down for having to sacrifice image quality. I think that's mostly psychological. I can't see much (if any) difference between the two images Bear posted- certainly not enough to affect my vote.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 12:21:28.
03/17/2006 12:20:46 PM · #144
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...76% of people do want a change


Or at least they think they do. From what I've read, people want larger file sizes and/or higher resolutions because they think they're being voted down for having to sacrifice image quality. I think that's mostly psychological. I can't see much (if any) difference between the two images Bear posted- certainly not enough to affect my vote.


Ditto.

Message edited by scalvert - Corrected my own typo-.
03/17/2006 12:22:13 PM · #145
Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

do you think it's fair to handicap all shots done in portrait?


At our 640x640 standard, anything other than a true square image is already handicapped to some degree. 640x640 looks huge compared to 640x 490 OR 490x640. That's why so many entries are relatively square crops compared to the aspect ratio the camera produces.

R.

show me a digital camera that shoots a square image though. You're forced to crop to get that square... not something i'm especially fond of doing unless it's absolutely necessary.

however that wasn't really the point of my comment. It just favors landscape over portrait.


I quite agree; just as ANY dimension set that allows maximum size to both dimensions favors the square crop as far as display size of image goes. Truly "fair" would be that the smallest side of the resultant image, in our 640-world, could be no greater than 490 pixels, or whatever it works out to on a standard sensor. Except that there IS no "standard sensor", so skinnier sensors would get longer long sides than their less-skinny brethren. There's no practical way around this :-)

R.
03/17/2006 12:25:34 PM · #146
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...76% of people do want a change


Or at least they think they do. From what I've read, people want larger file sizes and/or higher resolutions because they think they're being voted down for having to sacrifice image quality. I think that's mostly psychological. I can't see much (if any) difference between the two images Bear posted- certainly not enough to affect my vote.


Absolutely. If you went to 800 pixels from 640 you could see a difference, but it's obvious 800 is a no-go for screen real estate reasons in the real world. 640 to 700 is not worth making the change. And 150Kb to 250Kb isn't showing a marked improvement either,

R.
03/17/2006 12:26:06 PM · #147
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Just for comparison's sake; here's a shot from this morning at 640 pixels and 150Kb:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Same shot at 700 pixels and 250Kb here.

Robt.

Edit to add; you can compare 250kb to 150kb download times by clicking these links, as well as screen-size issues.


On dial up -- (33.6Kbps atm), the first image took almost a minute to load. The second took almost 2. I couldn't see a huge difference in the *quality,* though admittedly, there was a tiny bit. Not sure if that is the file size causing it or the dimensions. Bear, what would that same picture look like at 700 pixels and 150Kb?


700 Pixels at 150 Kb here.

R.

Maybe it it's because I'm using an old-fashioned 1024x768 monitor but to me there is little or no difference between the two 700 pixel images. What "save for web" percentage did you have to use for the 150 file? I can see more of a difference when comparing the 640 shot to either of the pair of 700s, but still not really all that much.
03/17/2006 12:27:08 PM · #148
Originally posted by coolhar:

Wait `til someone posts that they are going to take a point off the score of every image that they have to scroll to see, and then you'll hear some whining. ;)

Or, if it goes to 700 or 800 and people submit less than that, you'll hear (and possibly get dinged for) the "you should maximize your image and use the full (700/800)." Happens now with the 640 (which I always use at least one side).

Can't win for losing (or something like that). ;^)
03/17/2006 12:30:11 PM · #149
I just set my resolution to 1280 x 960 on my 17" CRT monitor and have not problem seeing the text and it does make a big difference in the viewing of a photograph. You do see detail better.

On the other hand when I view a picture 640X in this mode it skews the picture. The best way I can explain it is the way a picture looks in Photoshop when it has been reduced to say 33% the lines get jagged but if you put it at 25 or 50% the lines look ok.
03/17/2006 12:32:32 PM · #150
Originally posted by coolhar:


Maybe it it's because I'm using an old-fashioned 1024x768 monitor but to me there is little or no difference between the two 700 pixel images. What "save for web" percentage did you have to use for the 150 file? I can see more of a difference when comparing the 640 shot to either of the pair of 700s, but still not really all that much.


The 700-pixel, 250Kb version was 72%. The 700-pixel, 150Kb version was 66%. There is a LOT of texture in the water, is why the percentages are relatively low. These are the kind of images that least satisfy me when saved for the web, and I see no practical way of improving them. The look MUCH better at full resolution in photoshop. Less-textured images I can usually save at 85-90% Those look crisper, but it's probably not really a function of percentages; more an issue of how well the screen can resolve fine detail.

R.

R.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/26/2020 05:59:38 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: 10/26/2020 05:59:38 AM EDT.