I was just looking at my shot in one of the current challenges and thinking about the shots on the homepage that are 640x640 and thinking how much bigger they look than mine.
Yeah, no kidding. There's a LOT more real estate in 640x640.
640x640 = 409,600 pixels.... 640x428 = 273,920 pixels... That's 2/3 the size of the larger image.
Of course, the downside is, if it's at all a complex, textured image then you're gonna find yourself saving at very low quality to come in under 150kb.
Of course, the downside is, if it's at all a complex, textured image then you're gonna find yourself saving at very low quality to come in under 150kb.
There's surprisingly few that can't be brought in under 150k
I did once have a macro shot of a car headlamp that when square, would only compress at JPEG qualities below '50' to get under 150k and looked terrible. It was either 152k or 52k across the 50/49 boundary.
On the other end, 16:9 images are another 1/3rd smaller than the more normal 640x480 ratio and really don't look so good.
I think a pixel area limit might be better than a purely dimensional limit. Set the pixel area limit at 640x480 then establish less rigid dimensional ranges, just to avoid a 40000 pixel wide image or nonsense like that.
Nothing wider or higher than 800 pixels but with an area less than 640x480 pixels or something like that
I think a pixel area limit might be better than a purely dimensional limit. Set the pixel area limit at 640x480 then establish less rigid dimensional ranges, just to avoid a 40000 pixel wide image or nonsense like that.
Nothing wider or higher than 800 pixels but with an area less than 640x480 pixels or something like that
That would be ideal, but there is too much calculation involved I think; many many people would be confused by it.
I think a pixel area limit might be better than a purely dimensional limit. Set the pixel area limit at 640x480 then establish less rigid dimensional ranges, just to avoid a 40000 pixel wide image or nonsense like that.
Nothing wider or higher than 800 pixels but with an area less than 640x480 pixels or something like that
That would be ideal, but there is too much calculation involved I think; many many people would be confused by it.
R.
The challenge page could have a few sample sizes, for example 640x480 and 800x384 (both have same area), to help people out.
I would disagree there, I think anyone who can adhere to the fairly extensive rulesets on this site won't be fazed by multiplying two numbers.
Maybe you're right. I donno. Might be worth a try. BUT there's a coding issue, of course; right now it's coded to simple max dimensions, and that would have to change to a code that multiplied and used max area. I have no idea if that's an easy task.
A pixel limit is in principle a good idea, but in practice we need to maintain a sane limit on maximum image dimensions (height & width), most critically in the height direction. We do try to accommodate the most common screen resolutions, and that has been our guidance for the size limits.
That's a cool idea, Gordon. So nothing bigger than a 640x640(409,600) area, but at the same time the shot can't be longer than 640, or wider than say 720?
Edited to add: shots going as wide as 780 shouldn't be a problem since there's nothing to the sides of an image when voting, except the browser's scrollbar. The problem mainly lies in the height of the image exceeding 640px.
I would disagree there, I think anyone who can adhere to the fairly extensive rulesets on this site won't be fazed by multiplying two numbers.
Maybe you're right. I donno. Might be worth a try. BUT there's a coding issue, of course; right now it's coded to simple max dimensions, and that would have to change to a code that multiplied and used max area. I have no idea if that's an easy task.
R.
the length and width are already worked out, so the code that looks something like
That would be ideal, but there is too much calculation involved I think; many many people would be confused by it.
I think most people would be mostly unaffected by it - the same 640x480 image size would still work without change. It is only when you start wanting to change aspect ratios or cropping the image that the area calculation starts to kick in. A ready reckoner with the more standard aspect ratios pre-worked out would be easy enough to do..., so if you want an 8x10 the longest dimension has to be x, if you want a 4x6 the longest dimension has to be 640, and so on.
A pixel limit is in principle a good idea, but in practice we need to maintain a sane limit on maximum image dimensions (height & width), most critically in the height direction. We do try to accommodate the most common screen resolutions, and that has been our guidance for the size limits.
Yup, somehow sane dimensions should be preserved. I'd just like to be able to enter 16:9 images straight from my camera without having to size them such that they are 1/3rd smaller than most of the other entries in a given challenge.
Would level the playing field for square entries at the same time.
I think a pixel area limit might be better than a purely dimensional limit. Set the pixel area limit at 640x480 then establish less rigid dimensional ranges, just to avoid a 40000 pixel wide image or nonsense like that.
Nothing wider or higher than 800 pixels but with an area less than 640x480 pixels or something like that
That would be ideal, but there is too much calculation involved I think; many many people would be confused by it.
R.
Put a calculator right on the challenge submission page (or somewhere else if better suited), where the user just enters one value and the other is calculated for them when they hit the 'calculate' button. Have to make sure when the 'calculate' takes place the rest of the page doesn't refresh and wipe out challenge entry details already entered...
That's a cool idea, Gordon. So nothing bigger than a 640x640(409,600) area, but at the same time the shot can't be longer than 640, or wider than say 720?
I think that still biases in favour of square aspect ratios against wider aspect ratios, but I'm sure there's a reasonable set of area and dimension options that allows 1:1, 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratios all to have the same screen area within viewable dimensions.
With that in mind, we cant post shots at 640x640, comes to 409,600.
I don't have a particular bias against 640x640. Though the longer dimension would probably be fairer greater than 720 then. (720 on a 16:9 image gives it roughly the same area as a 640x480 image)
That's a cool idea, Gordon. So nothing bigger than a 640x640(409,600) area, but at the same time the shot can't be longer than 640, or wider than say 720?
I think that still biases in favour of square aspect ratios against wider aspect ratios, but I'm sure there's a reasonable set of area and dimension options that allows 1:1, 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratios all to have the same screen area within viewable dimensions.
So the biggest square crop would be 554x554. I'll check it out.
if we take 640x640 as the max area, then a 4:3 ratio image more fairly should be 739x554 and a 16:9 image should more fairly be 853x480
Also would let in the 2:1 ratio 905x453 size though.
If we take the current typical 640x480 as the benchmark, a 1:1 ratio image should shrink to 554x554 to be comparable in area, while a 16:9 image should be 739x416.
Again 2:1 ratio images are the longest in length, at 784x392
All this has the basic assumption that screen area is somehow a fairer metric of entry size than longest dimension though, which I'm sure is arguable.
Possibly the most pathetic suggestion ever.. I am a lover of square crop, the reason being that ones images do indeed look bigger and therefore have more of an impact. Sometimes I think people make suggestions just to get exposure for themselves in the forums and sure enough the bleating sheep bounce along happily behind..
If your shots are scoring worse, maybe they are just crap shots..
ones images do indeed look bigger and therefore have more of an impact.
Urm, they don't look bigger - they are bigger, which is why they have more impact. I don't think they should be smaller either.
These are both at the limits of what is allowed to be entered. In my case its a straight from the camera image without cropping. Currently your image is just about twice the actual size.
I would disagree there, I think anyone who can adhere to the fairly extensive rulesets on this site won't be fazed by multiplying two numbers.
Maybe you're right. I donno. Might be worth a try. BUT there's a coding issue, of course; right now it's coded to simple max dimensions, and that would have to change to a code that multiplied and used max area. I have no idea if that's an easy task.
Of course its bigger, what I meant was that its going to have more impact, as it hits you in the face harder.. people on here continually want to move the goalposts and make it harder for people who have adapted to limitations suffer as they don't have the foresight and artistic talent to use the rules to their advantage.
Instead they bitch about it as they "dont think it is fair"...
Why not just admit defeat and move onto one of the lesser quality sites.
I personally have found myself cropping shots oddly or considering square just to make it bigger on the screen. In this case, it seems the site rules are unduly influencing creativity, or favoring those who naturally use more square aspects.
