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 151 - 175 of 228, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/17/2006 12:34:08 PM · #151
My monitor (which is only 17" BTW) is set to 1280x1024 and I can see all of the examples without scrolling and not using F11. Same is true up to 899 pixels tall in IE 6 and Firefox 1.5.0.1. Up to 920 pixels tall in Opera 8.53.
03/17/2006 12:34:15 PM · #152
Originally posted by zeuszen:

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.

Ditto at home on 1280x1024 they look almost the same. At work on 1024x768 I have to scroll, I vote at work, cause I take pics and edit when I'm not working. So I say no change.
03/17/2006 12:37:05 PM · #153
Incidentally, for the record, in the past I was an advocate of change in this area. I no longer am pushing for it; I realize the benefits are illusory and the inconvenience to many is real. I'd be personally delighted to see 800 pixels and 500Kb, which would make a real difference, but I have a big screen and a fast connection, and I realize not everyone does.

R.
03/17/2006 12:44:03 PM · #154
Originally posted by Sonifo:

I just changed my monitor to 1280x1024 and I couldn't read the words even with glasses, so I blew the words up a bit and not I can't see the top navigating bar on dpc. It is all bunched up. What am I don't wrong here. The text also looks bulking and not very attractive. The funny thing is..I don't have bad eyesight but yet I can't read the font. :-/

My monitor is normally set at 1152x864.


Nothing wrong, the table cells don't expand along with the text is all. If you can read a book or magazine you should be able to read the text at 1280x1024 on most websites. Most of the text here is 12px text and at that resolution should look almost the same size as in a typical book or magazine.
03/17/2006 12:53:58 PM · #155
Here's another matching pair I realized I had in both places:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/305664.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/305664.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

"Blue Boat" at 700px and 250Kb

Funny how the horizontal one looks "more bigger" than in the vertical shots comparison, eh? Not a lot of quality difference though.

Robt.
03/17/2006 12:56:40 PM · #156
Bear's example points out the nature of perceived detail vs. image size. Our perception of detail present in a photo scales with the area of the photo. Using the 640x640 size as a reference, a 700x700 photo has 19% more area, 720x720 has 27% more, 740x740 has 34% more and 800x800 56% more area.
Given the above numbers, it's not suprising that 700x700 offers only a minor perceptual advantage over 640x640. It's also not surprising that 800x800 can make a very perceptible difference.
It's true that a large segment of our user base can't see 800x800 without scrolling. It's also true that the way the voting page is laid out now, scrolling is inevitable. In fact, at 1024x768, it's entirely possible to greatly reduce scrolling requirements while going to 800x800. In a short test this morning, I was able to see all of Langdon's 720px high test image and the title on a 1024x768 screen.
I believe that before we settle on a resolution, we'll need to consider the format of the voting page. It's not even close to optimized. The screen resolution results, as well as the very valuable feedback provided in this discussion are great guidance for that. BTW, for those who haven't seen it,
here is an image size vs. file size test that I did almost 2 years ago. This particular image was chosen as a "worst case" example, since the amount of fine detail, and the proximity of finely detailed areas to very smooth areas, creates a torture test for compression and the appearance of artifacts.
It's clear that at 800x800, more artifacts appear, but they are in fact pretty minor. For most photos, an increase in file size would provide almost no real perceptual benefit. For the 720px size, this is almost certainly true.
03/17/2006 01:04:31 PM · #157
Originally posted by kirbic:

Bear's example points out the nature of perceived detail vs. image size. Our perception of detail present in a photo scales with the area of the photo. Using the 640x640 size as a reference, a 700x700 photo has 19% more area, 720x720 has 27% more, 740x740 has 34% more and 800x800 56% more area.
Given the above numbers, it's not suprising that 700x700 offers only a minor perceptual advantage over 640x640. It's also not surprising that 800x800 can make a very perceptible difference.


To make this clear, a major benefit of going to 800 is to increase the size of the smaller details so the screen is capable of resolving them. To see what I mean, just open an image editor and load a full-size, highly detailed image. Now start zooming in on it and watch the details start to pop out at you. Up to a point, and very counterintuitively, sooming in makes the image look sharper, not softer; that's the result of bringing details up to a size the screen can resolve.

Certainly, if DPC can figure out a way to better use the full screen real estate and make 800 pixels a reality, we will be seeing much better detail. But as my examples and Kirbic's show, a bump to 700 from 640 really doesn't make a difference.

Robt.
03/17/2006 01:10:11 PM · #158
For me, even with my screen at full view... I had to scroll down for all of them.

It would get quite annoying trying to vote on images if I can only see a certain part and then I have to scroll to see the rest.
03/17/2006 02:25:05 PM · #159
when you're deciding, keep in mind that only 40.5% of voters voted for an image height of 800 pixels.
03/17/2006 02:37:23 PM · #160
I'm with the site administration on this one. I don't like having to scroll to see the whole image. Taking away from the image as a whole really defeats both the practical and artistic aspects of the photo and the challenge.

The site seems great to me - don't fix what isn't broken.
Thanks to the site for maintaining such a great spot on the web.

03/17/2006 03:09:49 PM · #161
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.


Thanks Bear. It was still around a minute with no degradation (that I could tell) of quality.
03/17/2006 03:37:01 PM · #162
Originally posted by langdon:

The final results are as follows:

1112 users participated.

451 voted for Increase limit to 800x800
395 voted for No change
130 voted for Increase limit to 700x700
136 voted for Increase limit to 800x700

x700 x720 x800 700x700 720x720 800x640


I propose a new poll. But, different than the last poll, require each participant to view the images included in the links above on their monitor. It is pretty obvious that most of the voters did not think it through before casting their vote. 41% voted to increase it to the maximum proposed size, which indicates that they just want to go bigger, no matter how big it is, and 36% voted to keep the resolution the same. That voting pattern, to me, indicates a lack of thought/knowledge about the sizes. From what it looks like, the vast majority of the monitors out there can handle a 700 or 800 pixel width, and the height is the largest problem. Those that voted on the 800x800 just didn't think about the fact that they wouldn't be able to view the entire image if it was a portrait, on their monitor. I myself have a 1280x1024 monitor resolution, and can't see the full thing. I knew that would be an issue, so I voted for the 800x700 maximum resolution increase. Going with an increase that changes the dimensions to that they are not 1:1, but reflect more of a monitor's resolution, would seem the logical choice. Anyone agree?

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 15:39:03.
03/17/2006 03:59:04 PM · #163
A non 1:1 dimension might seem logical in terms of our monitors, but it's not in terms of our photography. We shouldn't be limited as photographers because our monitors are in landscape orientation. It wouldn't be fair to all of us as photographers to limit the challenges in such a way that they favor landscape oriented photos.
03/17/2006 04:05:20 PM · #164
Originally posted by kearock:

A non 1:1 dimension might seem logical in terms of our monitors, but it's not in terms of our photography. We shouldn't be limited as photographers because our monitors are in landscape orientation. It wouldn't be fair to all of us as photographers to limit the challenges in such a way that they favor landscape oriented photos.


Ummm, actually it seems that doing this would help portrait shots because it keeps them on the screen... There's some alternative psychology if you think it through. If I submit a portrait, I would size it to keep it on as many screens as possible. Changing what size the site allows won't change the reality of having to scroll the image, so a portrait shot is best served by sizing it to fit typical screens.

I think.

All these different opinions are getting eggstweemewy confusing.
03/17/2006 04:09:39 PM · #165
Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by kearock:

A non 1:1 dimension might seem logical in terms of our monitors, but it's not in terms of our photography. We shouldn't be limited as photographers because our monitors are in landscape orientation. It wouldn't be fair to all of us as photographers to limit the challenges in such a way that they favor landscape oriented photos.


Ummm, actually it seems that doing this would help portrait shots because it keeps them on the screen... There's some alternative psychology if you think it through. If I submit a portrait, I would size it to keep it on as many screens as possible. Changing what size the site allows won't change the reality of having to scroll the image, so a portrait shot is best served by sizing it to fit typical screens.


Keeping portrait shots on the screen doesn't help them per say, it just refrains from putting them at even more of a disadvantage. 800x700 or any other non 1:1 ratio gives landscapes an advantage because they are bigger, i.e. more impact, more detail, etc.

edit: To clarify my position, I'm in favor of keeping the 640x640 ratio. Though there have been occasions when I would have liked more space for more detail or a panoramic crop, the current image size limitations are, in my opinion, the fairest for the most people. I admit, I also worry about image theft increasing with increasing image size.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 16:14:05.
03/17/2006 04:13:36 PM · #166
After reading the pros and cons I would have to agree that there would be no benefit in increasing the size to 800x800 unless you increase the file size to say 500k.

Here is an example. It is a subtle difference because it may not be as good of picture as some others take but look at the water drops and details between picture one and picture two.

Pic 1 800x533 @ 150k
Pic 2 800x533 @ 462k

Now compare pic 3 (640x427 @ 150k) to pic 1 (800x533 @ 150k) To me 640x looks better than 800x if the file size does not increase.
Pic 1 800x533 @ 150k
Pic 3 640x427 @ 150k


Message edited by author 2006-03-17 16:28:28.
03/17/2006 04:33:48 PM · #167
Originally posted by southern_exposure:

Pic 1 800x533 @ 150k
Pic 2 800x533 @ 462k


Your images are mislabeled.. the first is 462k and the 2nd 150k. Also, they aren't the same image... one is over-sharpened. When I take 60267240-O.jpg (which is 462k) into IrfanView and resave it at 80%, it takes it down to 80k and looks practically identical.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 16:34:36.
03/17/2006 04:39:56 PM · #168
Originally posted by langdon:

Originally posted by southern_exposure:

Pic 1 800x533 @ 150k
Pic 2 800x533 @ 462k


Your images are mislabeled.. the first is 462k and the 2nd 150k. Also, they aren't the same image... one is over-sharpened. When I take 60267240-O.jpg (which is 462k) into IrfanView and resave it at 80%, it takes it down to 80k and looks practically identical.


yea I see i did link backward but the are the Identical photograph. Both pictures were taken from a saved edited file then reduced to proper sizes from that file with one saved at 150k and the other at 462k.

Now this is confusing???? why is the 462k look worse (to me) than the 150k file?
03/17/2006 04:42:31 PM · #169
Langdon,

As a fellow programmer, I have faced this situation many times. I don;t understand why we couldn't do the following.

Keep everything as is with one exception. When you are on the page that the 640X640 image is now on, just make it clickable to view the larger image. This way, if a person has a smaller monitor (resolution) they have the option of NOT clicking, but the people that do have higher resolutions DO have the option to view the larger image.

Hope this makes sense. It seems like it would make everyone happy.

David

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 16:49:32.
03/17/2006 04:51:38 PM · #170
Originally posted by langdon:

Originally posted by southern_exposure:

Pic 1 800x533 @ 150k
Pic 2 800x533 @ 462k


Your images are mislabeled.. the first is 462k and the 2nd 150k. Also, they aren't the same image... one is over-sharpened. When I take 60267240-O.jpg (which is 462k) into IrfanView and resave it at 80%, it takes it down to 80k and looks practically identical.


HERE I uploaded the Edited file at 3131x2087. It has not been sharpened for downsizing yet. Since I can't seem to get it right :) and I would love to see the difference in it between
800x @ 500
800x @ 150
640x @ 150
If you could post some examples I would greatly appreciate it. I don't want to mislead anyone.
Thank,
-SDW

P/S - unless smugmug adjust files when uploading??????


Message edited by author 2006-03-17 16:52:28.
03/17/2006 05:01:55 PM · #171
I'm just about wetting myself with laughter here.

All those who voted to go bigger so that we could have "better quality" didn't read the fine print about the 150kb limit and have in fact voted for more compression and worse quality ... LOL

Brett
03/17/2006 05:04:04 PM · #172
Originally posted by davidcara:



Hope this makes sense. It seems like it would make everyone happy.



No, sorry, it wouldn't. Me, yes. Others, heck no. :)
03/17/2006 05:07:22 PM · #173
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

I'm just about wetting myself with laughter here.

All those who voted to go bigger so that we could have "better quality" didn't read the fine print about the 150kb limit and have in fact voted for more compression and worse quality ... LOL

Brett


Before you spend your time sitting in a puddle of urine...

Originally posted by langdon:

The file size issue is not up for discussion does not mean that it won't change. When we come to a decision on any dimension change, we will assess if a file size change is needed. It makes perfect sense that if we're increasing the dimensions by 20%, we would also increase the file size by 20%
[/quote]
03/17/2006 05:16:07 PM · #174
Originally posted by mk:

Before you spend your time sitting in a puddle of urine...

Party pooper

Brett
03/17/2006 05:18:04 PM · #175
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

Originally posted by mk:

Before you spend your time sitting in a puddle of urine...

Party pooper


Hey, if you get to wet yourself, it's only fair...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/26/2020 06:05:09 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 06:05:09 AM EDT.