I'm not sure where this message should go, but I'll put it here. I completely understand the 150k size limit, but I think we should be allowed to submit our photographs in aspect ratios different from the 2 allowed. I've seen images on other photo sites that are square, and I think that really adds a lot to some photos.
I had always assumed it had something to do with the Website programming, but if it does not I am perfectly open to the idea.
Though I wonder with the 150kb limit how open the other options could be without really bringing down the picture quality with some cameras. If I was going to make a suggestion I would say that you should add a square option and a panoramic option.
However I would not be offended or bothered by more options than that.
Originally posted by bdshort: I''m not sure where this message should go, but I''ll put it here. I completely understand the 150k size limit...Is there a reason for the 2 resolution limits?
Brian
I believe the origin of this was an attempt to not penalize those who could not crop their photos due to software or resolution limits. However, like many people here, I myself support changing the limit to no more than 640 pixels on the longest dimension (and maybe a max of 480 for the shorter) AND keep the 150kb size limit (that would limit a square image to 480x480). I think everyone here should have access to cropping software by now, and I think the nember of submitters with ultra-low-end cameras is quite small.
This would also afford us the chance to specify the crop as part of a future challenge (e.g require a square or panoramic crop).
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/13/2002 2:46:06 PM.
Originally posted by GeneralE: However, like many people here, I myself support changing the limit to no more than 640 pixels on the longest dimension (and maybe a max of 480 for the shorter) AND keep the 150kb size limit (that would limit a square image to 480x480).
How about we specify that pictures may not contain more than 307200 pixels? This would not give anyone a resolution advantage and would also allow for panoramics.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/13/2002 4:21:50 PM.
I like keeping things simple. The longest side needs to be 640 pixels. It shouldn't be a problem if square pictures are 640 x 640 as long as they don't exceed the 150k limit. Then there is just one dimension and file size that we need to be concerned about. If someone crops extremely narrow and it makes the photo look awful then just vote them down for it.
Originally posted by timj351: I like keeping things simple. The longest side needs to be 640 pixels. It shouldn't be a problem if square pictures are 640 x 640 as long as they don't exceed the 150k limit.
I vote for this--it is fair and isn't overly complicated.
Originally posted by timj351: I like keeping things simple. The longest side needs to be 640 pixels. It shouldn't be a problem if square pictures are 640 x 640 as long as they don't exceed the 150k limit. Then there is just one dimension and file size that we need to be concerned about. If someone crops extremely narrow and it makes the photo look awful then just vote them down for it.
I like the simplicity of this approach. If we wanted to make it easier for square photos to look good and be compressed to under 150K, we could set the longest side at something smaller than 640 pixels - say 600 or 512.
I like the idea of removing the size specifics. This would make it a LOT easier for most people to produce a nice image without having to worry about the exact crop being in place. I have learned that if you are not using an adobe product, it is not so easy to get the image sized properly if you are trying to crop from an original image.
I would be supportive of removing these restrictions and opening it up a bit. I think that the image size of 640x640 should be the max on a square rather than 480x480. I think the 150k max file size should stay as is.
...I think that the image size of 640x640 should be the max on a square rather than 480x480. I think the 150k max file size should stay as is.
I'd be very happy with this, but I myself might still opt for the smaller size, allowing for less compression degradation to meet the 150k limit -- 640sqp would probably need a JPEG level of 4 or 5, instead of 7 or 8 like I use now. It also "evens things out" for folks whose camera only captures 480 on one side.
I'm a little confused, GeneralE (this is common, I know) Are you suggesting that if we go to an arbitrary ratio format then the maximum size for the long side would now be 480 pixels? Or are you only talking about perfectly square photos? If so what about 'almost' perfectly square photos, (See the confusion)?If the maximum dimension for the long side of all photos changes to 480 pixels then I am definitely against that. I feel like 640 pixels on the long side is already minimal for decent viewing. People would need to consider what their comeras are capable of and if they create an image that they would love to crop in a square format but it looks too compressed then I think they should deal with it, either submit anyway or reformat it to 640 x 480. I don't think all of us should have our photos limited even more because of a small percentage of people with below average cameras or skills with the editing software.
Clearly the simplest solution is to allow a maximum of 640x640. I might make a square photo smaller for reasons of quality.
However, by simply making the maximum size 640x480, you effectively limit square crops to 480x480, and rectangular crops are limited to 640x1. I don't if there needs to be one or two minimum dimensions.
I don't care very much about the specifics here -- I just think we shouldn't be confined to two fixed aspect ratios as we are now. Either of the above simple solutions would be fine with me.
But that would still mean that people could submit 120 x 120 pixel images. I'm not saying that lots of people would but they could submit anything in between and I personal would not like the inconsistency of viewing lots of different sized images. I'm only talking about differences in the number of pixels on the long side. People might think that submitting a small picture will make it look sharper and while that is true to a point, I would still prefer to generally look at sizes that are convenient to viewing even if there are a few compression artifacts. But that's just me. My one little opinion :? )
Originally posted by timj351: I'm a little confused, GeneralE (this is common, I know) Are you suggesting that if we go to an arbitrary ratio format then the maximum size for the long side would now be 480 pixels? Or are you only talking about perfectly square photos? If so what about 'almost' perfectly square photos, (See the confusion)?If the maximum dimension for the long side of all photos changes to 480 pixels then I am definitely against that. I feel like 640 pixels on the long side is already minimal for decent viewing. People would need to consider what their comeras are capable of and if they create an image that they would love to crop in a square format but it looks too compressed then I think they should deal with it, either submit anyway or reformat it to 640 x 480. I don't think all of us should have our photos limited even more because of a small percentage of people with below average cameras or skills with the editing software.
Tim J
If the max was 640x640, you could do any 1:1 ratio you like underneath the max :)
Why don''t we just leave the dimensions as is, and allow submitters to add a white border to their image. Then none of the coding has to change and you can you picture any size you want up to 640x480.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/14/2002 5:36:26 PM.
Originally posted by jmsetzler: I have learned that if you are not using an adobe product, it is not so easy to get the image sized properly if you are trying to crop from an original image.
A really good program I use is LViewPro. You just highlight the area and hit a button. Easy peasy. Also they have resize and redimension. (among other neato deals.. slideshow, grayscale, etc etc)
Originally posted by Jenguin: Originally posted by jmsetzler: [i] I have learned that if you are not using an adobe product, it is not so easy to get the image sized properly if you are trying to crop from an original image.
A really good program I use is LViewPro. You just highlight the area and hit a button. Easy peasy. Also they have resize and redimension. (among other neato deals.. slideshow, grayscale, etc etc)
you can get it off www.download.com
- Jen
[/i]
resizing and redimensioning have a terrible effect on the quality of the image... resampling is what you need.. some software programs use those terms interchangeably and they are not the same thing.
Originally posted by jmsetzler: resizing and redimensioning have a terrible effect on the quality of the image... resampling is what you need.. some software programs use those terms interchangeably and they are not the same thing.
Well, i use those if I'm creating a blank image at a specific size, then I paste in a section of what I want to be seen.
For example, I wanted a neato avatar dealie for another board I chat on (a Matt Nathanson one, ExpectedMiracles). It had to be a specific size. So I used lviewpro to do this.
