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 201 - 225 of 228, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/20/2006 12:14:35 AM · #201
i'm using a 19" lcd with a digital HDI cable this sets the resolution at 1280x1028, if i used a vga cable it would allow me to get higher resolutions but at much lower quality.

At first i wanted 800x800 but now i do think we could do with a bit of an increase but not the full 800x800, i just can't see how anybody is going to decide which resolution would be best.

good luck :)
03/20/2006 05:41:25 PM · #202
Originally posted by deapee:

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.


Because this is not a Democracy.
03/20/2006 06:15:17 PM · #203
I think what people really want is a decision.

Possible decisions: 1) We're not changing it but will revisit the issue in a year; 2) We are going to try a larger photo size as a test and will decide after a 2 month trial whether to keep it; 3) We're changing it to hhh x vvv and it'll be ready on mm/dd/yy. I'm sure there are other possible decisions.

D&L, you've got the data. You've had our input. Just decide, any decision will do, and tell us, okay?
03/20/2006 06:44:25 PM · #204
I choose #2.

Seriously though, like I said earlier, I think a trial using a larger resolution is necessary. While 720x720 would initially make the most sense (middle ground between 640 and 800), I think that 700x700 (while only a 60px increase) is the best bet because it would include those with a resolution of 1152x864 and 1440x900 (62 more people). Going from 800->720 would only include those using 1440x900 (16 more people).

This is all according to my requirement of *x960 using default windows set up.

I'll set it up when my plate isn't so full.
03/21/2006 04:40:23 AM · #205
If the change is made, would it be possible to get a refund on membership?
03/21/2006 04:45:54 AM · #206
General Terms & Conditions states:

2.3 DPChallenge.com may modify the DPChallenge.com Service at any time with or without notice to you.

Message edited by author 2006-03-21 04:48:08.
04/02/2006 12:05:04 AM · #207
All of the gathered data is not pleading for a change. perhaps a later date will shed more light. It matters little to me, it is just that I feel that about 30 to 40 percent of members are not up to speed.
04/06/2006 11:46:13 PM · #208
Why do we have to worry about "being unfair" to portrait orientation with a change to 800x640? Most of us (close to 100% is my guess) have landscape monitors. For people running 1024x768, a portrait shot at XXXx640 will take up most of the available vertical space, and a landscape shot of 800xXXX will take up most of the available horizontal space.

Boosting horizontal resolution feels more like resolving a horizontal deficit rather than creating a vertical one.

Is there any evidence that portrait shots wouldn't do well against landscape shots just because there are fewer pixels on the longer sides?

If this has already been asked or addressed, sorry. I tried to read the whole thread, but my eyes started glazing over... =]
04/07/2006 12:29:48 AM · #209
How could there be any evidence of a hypothetical photo size change...
04/07/2006 12:54:29 AM · #210
Originally posted by BikeRacer:

Why do we have to worry about "being unfair" to portrait orientation with a change to 800x640?

Because the whole point of allowing more pixels is to allow greater resolution with which to express fine detail. By restricting the vertical dimension you are penalizing anyone who wants to shoot a detailed photo requiring a portrait orientation, say a soaring tree with sun-dappled leaves.

People shooting in landscape orientation will have an advantage by either having more pixels available or avoiding the necessity of scrolling to see their picture.
04/07/2006 12:59:01 AM · #211
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by BikeRacer:

Why do we have to worry about "being unfair" to portrait orientation with a change to 800x640?

Because the whole point of allowing more pixels is to allow greater resolution with which to express fine detail. By restricting the vertical dimension you are penalizing anyone who wants to shoot a detailed photo requiring a portrait orientation, say a soaring tree with sun-dappled leaves.

People shooting in landscape orientation will have an advantage by either having more pixels available or avoiding the necessity of scrolling to see their picture.


That too!
04/07/2006 12:59:41 AM · #212
I'm still confused though... How could there be any evidence of a hypothetical photo size change...
04/07/2006 01:43:33 AM · #213
Originally posted by TooCool:

I'm still confused though... How could there be any evidence of a hypothetical photo size change...


The current "Textures" challenge is allowing 720 pixels and 200Kb images.

R.
04/07/2006 02:57:24 AM · #214
This may have been addressed already, I have read through each post but didn't see it...
Would it not be possible to make it a user preference setting (much like the setting we have to show so many pictures in a row)? That way, I could choose the setting 640, 700, 800 or whatever.
Just an idea?
04/07/2006 03:27:30 AM · #215
Originally posted by jimpearce:

This may have been addressed already, I have read through each post but didn't see it...
Would it not be possible to make it a user preference setting (much like the setting we have to show so many pictures in a row)? That way, I could choose the setting 640, 700, 800 or whatever.
Just an idea?


It has been suggested, but there are several problems with it; it would require either multiple uploads per submitter OR a resizing algoritm to be in place; and the members here do not trust that the quality of their image will be maintained if the site resizes it. Certainly, I tweak the USM on my images every time I make them smaller.

Also, some say it's not right that we'd not all be voting on the "same" image.

Robt.
04/07/2006 05:07:27 AM · #216
Here is the exact reason that the 720pixel idea is unlikely to work.

Originally posted by a commenter in the Texture Challenge:

Sorry can't see the whole image on my screen to get a good evaluation. Maybe shoot a landscape so its easier to view


I decided to enter into the spirit of the experiment and submit my entry at full resolution but I didn't really expect to be marked down for it. To be fair, I'm not sure that I was and I certainly am not complaining about the comment or the commenter - they are right.

We needed to test it. It almost fits on my monitor but it looks like the idea doesn't work in practice. I've just looked through all the Texture entries ... can anyone honestly say that the quality is better and that one is better than another - I can't see any difference and there's entries in there of all shapes and sizes. That was the only argument for the change in the first place.

Brett

Message edited by author 2006-04-07 08:00:57.
04/07/2006 08:16:33 AM · #217
Originally posted by KiwiPix:

Here is the exact reason that the 720pixel idea is unlikely to work.

Originally posted by a commenter in the Texture Challenge:

Sorry can't see the whole image on my screen to get a good evaluation. Maybe shoot a landscape so its easier to view


I decided to enter into the spirit of the experiment and submit my entry at full resolution but I didn't really expect to be marked down for it. To be fair, I'm not sure that I was and I certainly am not complaining about the comment or the commenter - they are right.

We needed to test it. It almost fits on my monitor but it looks like the idea doesn't work in practice. I've just looked through all the Texture entries ... can anyone honestly say that the quality is better and that one is better than another - I can't see any difference and there's entries in there of all shapes and sizes. That was the only argument for the change in the first place.

Brett


That was my comment. I am voting on a laptop whilst in India, and am having real trouble just getting to see the bigger 720px (vertical) images.

I didn't vote anyone down because of this, but wanted to register the difficulty.
04/07/2006 11:12:25 AM · #218
and I've already gotten a comment that my 640 pixel wide image is too small! sure didn't take the voters long to adjust! hahaha
04/07/2006 11:27:21 AM · #219
Well, I just got done voting for a bunch of Textures at the new size. The ones full vertical made me scroll a bit to vote/comment. Slightly annoying, but no big deal.

I have to say, I can't really see that the 720 size is really all that much better than 640 - does not make that much difference to me. Lousy shots still look lousy, great shots still look great.

I think it was a great experiment - my $0.02 is that I don't think it would be worth the effort to only go to 720.

Even going to 800x800 would not impress me. What makes the most impact to me when I view photos is going full-screen: then all distractions disappear and you only see the image. Implementation of that is probably not practicle (yet)...
04/07/2006 11:33:51 AM · #220
Actually, having started to vote for this challenge, I can see a clear improvement in general image detail. Or maybe it's the challenge itself (lots of macros ). I don't suffer from having to scroll (1400x1050 screen) but can clearly see some difficulties for those who do have to scroll.
Maybe popping up a browser window for each photo would help? Not sure if it is even possible... just an idea.
04/15/2006 11:01:34 PM · #221
Originally posted by joebok:

Well, I just got done voting for ... Textures at the new size...

I have to say, I can't really see that the 720 size is really all that much better than 640 - does not make that much difference to me. Lousy shots still look lousy, great shots still look great.

I think it was a great experiment - my $0.02 is that I don't think it would be worth the effort to only go to 720.

...


I have to agree with this. At full screen (12xx x 10xx), I can see images in their entirety, but I see no real advantage to the larger images.
04/19/2006 08:42:40 PM · #222
In any case, challenges aside. I would find a max res of >640 very welcome for portfolio images. Seems it auto down sizes any image I upload to 640.

Message edited by author 2006-04-19 20:43:19.
04/19/2006 08:58:33 PM · #223
Originally posted by bluenova:

If the change is made, would it be possible to get a refund on membership?


lol
04/21/2006 09:10:10 PM · #224
Interesting "problem". I just got a new laptop (Dell M70) with a 15.4 inch screen and a native resolution of 1920x1200. It has great color and such but the 640x640 images are... almost too small... gasp!
04/21/2006 09:18:50 PM · #225
Originally posted by dleach:

Interesting "problem". I just got a new laptop (Dell M70) with a 15.4 inch screen and a native resolution of 1920x1200. It has great color and such but the 640x640 images are... almost too small... gasp!


So you're saying you can't change the resolution?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/26/2020 06:14:34 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 06:14:34 AM EDT.