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 176 - 200 of 228, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/17/2006 05:36:29 PM · #176
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Rooster:

the pic looked goos to me but I one of 14 cats here that have length 1200.

Is it possible to find a medium between the 2 since most did vote for the 800?

Why not make the width up to 800 & leave the length 640?

Seems like it might work, no?

No.


Great answer dude! You're brilliant! Perhaps this is why threads tend to be less civil. Try toning down the attitude. No one came here to get any from you.
Thanks for the clarification Bluenova & fotoman.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 17:41:14.
03/17/2006 05:53:21 PM · #177
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

As a cure for urinary incontinence I'd suggest going the other way on this issue, leaving the dimensions at 640 x 640, but increasing the file size limit to 200 or 250KB, which would allow almost all images to be saved at or near maximum quality, thus preserving detail without needing to enlarge the display.

Disk storage space on the server is a lot cheaper than 800 new monitors ...
03/17/2006 06:15:14 PM · #178
Top 11 Reasons I Need a New Monitor

They left us out!
03/17/2006 07:29:57 PM · #179
Ok, I just hooked up my new monitor, yay!!! (sorry, real excited) Here's a screenshot of Langdons shot at 1680x1050:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/29797/thumb/307772.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/29797/thumb/307772.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
I can't even imagine what it would look like at Shannon's resolution!
03/17/2006 07:38:26 PM · #180
Originally posted by GeneralE:

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

As a cure for urinary incontinence I'd suggest going the other way on this issue, leaving the dimensions at 640 x 640, but increasing the file size limit to 200 or 250KB, which would allow almost all images to be saved at or near maximum quality, thus preserving detail without needing to enlarge the display.

Disk storage space on the server is a lot cheaper than 800 new monitors ...


Wet britches aside, I agree on same dimensions and increase file size as a first trial.
03/17/2006 08:25:39 PM · #181
Originally posted by Rooster:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Rooster:

the pic looked goos to me but I one of 14 cats here that have length 1200.

Is it possible to find a medium between the 2 since most did vote for the 800?

Why not make the width up to 800 & leave the length 640?

Seems like it might work, no?

No.


Great answer dude! You're brilliant! Perhaps this is why threads tend to be less civil. Try toning down the attitude. No one came here to get any from you.
Thanks for the clarification Bluenova & fotoman.

Sorry. Thought perhaps you might have read a few posts in this thread. If you had you would have seen that this has been discussed in length already.

Message edited by scalvert - Play nice, folks..
03/17/2006 08:46:45 PM · #182
' . substr('//www.pbase.com/image/57368800/small.jpg', strrpos('//www.pbase.com/image/57368800/small.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

See how different pixel sizes of the same picture will look on your screen by going to the above PBase gallery. The dimensions of each crop are included in the title shown beneath each image. Click on each image to see it at full size. :)

This might help some of you decide how you feel about the 640 X 640 debate.
03/17/2006 08:54:08 PM · #183
' . substr('//i.pbase.com/t1/21/102121/4/57385331.Untitledbeargold1j.jpg', strrpos('//i.pbase.com/t1/21/102121/4/57385331.Untitledbeargold1j.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

........another Bear comparison on monitor set to 1152x864 (click F11 for exact size)
03/17/2006 09:45:27 PM · #184
Originally posted by stdavidson:

See how different pixel sizes of the same picture will look on your screen by going to the above PBase gallery.


Looking at the 640x640 and 800x800 pixel versions side-by-side, I don't see any difference that would affect my voting perception at all. Any detail I can see in one is just as evident in the other. I still think we're discussing a solution in search of a problem.
03/18/2006 03:35:23 AM · #185
Originally posted by davidcara:

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

The only way this could be possible wihout auto-resizing, would be to allow the user to upload 2 versions. Are people really going to do that? And can the server cope with double the storage space needed?
03/18/2006 08:14:28 AM · #186
Originally posted by rblanton:

Originally posted by GeneralE:


As a cure for urinary incontinence I'd suggest going the other way on this issue, leaving the dimensions at 640 x 640, but increasing the file size limit to 200 or 250KB, which would allow almost all images to be saved at or near maximum quality, thus preserving detail without needing to enlarge the display.

Disk storage space on the server is a lot cheaper than 800 new monitors ...


Wet britches aside, I agree on same dimensions and increase file size as a first trial.


I definitely second that. I prefer bytes to pixels any day. I'm one of the very few cool cats who have 1200 height... in fact, i have five 1600x1200 21" CRTS side by side here. However, i never run firefox full-screen, my windows usually float around my desktop here and there, and my current firefox window comes out at about 1280x1024 at the moment. I could see langton's photo, but i had to scroll down to have it all in my browser - a complete pain if i were voting on hundreds. I say, if it ain't broke...

Also, i'll once again take this chance to say NO WAY to auto-resizing in any form. Regardless of whether it's a machine-generated improperly sharpened rescale (like the soft fuzzy dpcprints previews), or a different version that i have to upload myself, if i'm putting a shot up for voting, i want everyone to be voting on the same thing!
03/18/2006 09:48:17 AM · #187
I did set mine higher and the picture was distorted. Now what?

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

The resolution data is based on what people have their monitor set at not what it is capable of doing. There are many factors to this, one may be poor vision. YES it is possible to have poor vision and still be a great photographer. Many don't know that it is normally possible to increase to a better resolution and set the text size to a larger text size allowing it to be read still. A monitor resolution is not a constant, depending on what you use it for you may have one resolution you use for typing and another for graphics yet another for playing games. In most cases a higher reolution is best for photogrpahy or graphics, a lower resolution for playing solitare cards.

Those who choose lower resolution for their own reasons should not hold those back who have chosen higher resolution. Likewise those who do not have the cash to upgrade and are currently using the highest resolution available should not be pushed aside. I also do not think that those who can increase their resolution for photography but chose not to should be as big of a concern. This is a photography site not a card playing site.

Let's be friends but also if 90% can set a higher resolution then it needs to be looked at much harder. There are people here that contribute great photos from $10,000 cameras and those who use $75 camera, the reality is that not everyone has money to upgrade a monitor and graphics card to power it. The concern over dial-up versus broadband is mute, it's the size of the file not the resolution of the photo. 150kb is the same for fast or slow internet.

Let's be friends but make a good business and neighbour decision.
03/18/2006 09:59:40 AM · #188
ditto, and for those of us who can't set our resolution without the pictures being distorted will either be frustrated because the faces are smashed in the portraits and vote low on that or not vote at all because we have to scroll if we keep or resolution as is.
so really, they will be getting lower votes.

Originally posted by scalvert:

[quote=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. [/quote

03/18/2006 10:07:59 AM · #189
I to think after seeing examples and realy studying the effects on my browser and how i use it to vote for the picture i Would vote for 800 X 600 if it was a option.
Just my 2-cents
03/18/2006 10:32:05 AM · #190
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

The resolution data is based on what people have their monitor set at not what it is capable of doing. There are many factors to this, one may be poor vision. YES it is possible to have poor vision and still be a great photographer. Many don't know that it is normally possible to increase to a better resolution and set the text size to a larger text size allowing it to be read still. A monitor resolution is not a constant, depending on what you use it for you may have one resolution you use for typing and another for graphics yet another for playing games. In most cases a higher reolution is best for photogrpahy or graphics, a lower resolution for playing solitare cards.

Those who choose lower resolution for their own reasons should not hold those back who have chosen higher resolution. Likewise those who do not have the cash to upgrade and are currently using the highest resolution available should not be pushed aside. I also do not think that those who can increase their resolution for photography but chose not to should be as big of a concern. This is a photography site not a card playing site.

Let's be friends but also if 90% can set a higher resolution then it needs to be looked at much harder. There are people here that contribute great photos from $10,000 cameras and those who use $75 camera, the reality is that not everyone has money to upgrade a monitor and graphics card to power it. The concern over dial-up versus broadband is mute, it's the size of the file not the resolution of the photo. 150kb is the same for fast or slow internet.

Let's be friends but make a good business and neighbour decision.


Just keep in mind that those people who don't want/can't have higher resolution that you're urging to be a friend and pal and neighbor and vote the way you want are the ones who will be voting on your photo. Given the number of existing threads complaining about the lack of time spent looking at a photo, I can't wait for the "people aren't even scrolling to see my whole photo!!" threads.
03/18/2006 10:34:58 AM · #191

<sarcasm>
Vertical pictures are always better than horizontal so we need to handicap them by having a greater dimension restriction in that direction. This will level the playing field.
</sarcasm>

;oP
03/18/2006 11:51:03 AM · #192
I just went through my pictures and looked at the size of them.

None of my top 4 photos have a long edge of 640. Most of my 6+ scores do not either. Besides that fact, most of them have a border of 10 pixels all the way around and still do not make it to 640.
03/18/2006 12:01:26 PM · #193
While having more resolution would be nice, for those who live in rural areas and only have dial-up available, it takes a bit of time to dl each 640x640 picture. Voting on only half of the pics in any given challenge takes me an hour-and-a-half at dial up; downloading the data that larger pictures require would make voting prohibitive.
03/18/2006 02:47:06 PM · #194
While we are discussing a possible voting page makeover, there are a few previously made suggestions that might just help.

Calibration click-thru before each voting session. This would allow the greyscale bar to be removed from the voting page. A simple 'can you read this' with dark grey on black and light grey on white would accomplish the same thing the bar does. I understand this would not get everyone looking at the exact same image; add a gamma test and we would at least be in the same ballpark.

Voting scale, as mentioned, could be moved to the side of the image, but adding the functionality of using the numberpad to vote/browse would further reduce the 'clutter' on the voting page. This would be the numbers 1-9 and 0 being 10, -/+ moving to the previous/next entry.

Comment box could remain at the bottom as if someone has something to say they aren't likely to mind scrolling a bit to say it. There are so few comments (compared to votes and views) that I don't see this inconviencing anyone greatly. In fact, for those of us that have played networked games, are familiar with hitting 'enter' to bring up a message box, type the message, and then hit enter again to send it. That would be great, with the obvious exception of storing the comment instead of sending it. The combination of this and the voting keys above would allow browsing, voting and commenting, all without lifting my fingers from home row.

And, with all of the above, opening one 800x800 (or whatever) window with nothing but the image in it and the image title in the title bar would allow easy voting/commenting with maximum screen usage. This would be best if it was a toolbar-less window like comes up when previewing posts.

Finally, on the subject of auto-resizing, does imagemagick (or other program) have customization controls that could be mapped to user selected options (with preview) during the submission process. If so, this would allow the user to fine-tune the appearance of the smaller image. All the while not taking up server space with two images and allowing for dynamic resizing. If possible, the same could be done for the thumbs.

David
03/19/2006 07:15:01 PM · #195
hrmm...I have 1024x768, I have to scroll to see a 640 pixel in height image...obviously you'd have to scroll to see an 800...that is obviously not a question. The 800 pixel rule would be beneficial for width alone.

717 voted to change from the current 640 pixel limit...

So, SIXTY FIVE PERCENT of the people that participated said they wanted change. The community asked for a vote, we got a vote, you got your answer...let's see some change.
03/19/2006 07:23:21 PM · #196
We could of all voted to see a change. That doesn't mean they will change it. Our vote really means nothing. We don't own the site. We are just members.
03/19/2006 07:28:07 PM · #197
Keep site as is. Image size is fine I never had a problem with entries before, whats the big deal with having a bigger image. I have a huge lcd at home and still I want no size change done here........ I use my powerbook more and I hate have to scroll up or down to see the rest of an image.
03/19/2006 07:38:11 PM · #198
Can we just have a test challenge and then take another vote please?

And up the file size so I don't have to guassian blur a leaf picture again. :P
03/19/2006 07:41:38 PM · #199
Originally posted by digitalpins:

Keep site as is. Image size is fine I never had a problem with entries before, whats the big deal with having a bigger image. I have a huge lcd at home and still I want no size change done here........ I use my powerbook more and I hate have to scroll up or down to see the rest of an image.


I agree
03/19/2006 11:37:00 PM · #200
Originally posted by digitalpins:

Keep site as is. Image size is fine I never had a problem with entries before, whats the big deal with having a bigger image. I have a huge lcd at home and still I want no size change done here........ I use my powerbook more and I hate have to scroll up or down to see the rest of an image.


What don't you guys understand...the topic was debated, they started a poll, one which ALL MEMBERS who had a stand on the topic could vote in...the majority say change is necessary...I don't see why the debate is still going on.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/26/2020 06:09:00 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 06:09:00 AM EDT.