FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Picture size for posting

Page  <1234 6>
Author
ricardovaste View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 August 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Shropshire
Status: Offline
Posts: 9948
Post Options Post Options   Quote ricardovaste Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 14:59
Originally posted by owenn01 owenn01 wrote:

Originally posted by ricardovaste ricardovaste wrote:

If you ever feel like you can't see enough detail at this size, then it's probably poor post production or just not a great photo.


Ah, Richard: thanks for letting me know where I've been going wrong all these years now...


I hope my remark isn't to be misinterpreted by anyone. We are all learning post production, constantly, and we all take "bad" photos - usually more "bad" than "good". I myself am still surprised when I manage to get something remotely in focus and pointed at the right subject . To which to say, altering the web design often isn't the answer.
 



Back to Top
Winwalloe View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 September 2007
Country: France
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Posts: 2664
Post Options Post Options   Quote Winwalloe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 15:14
Scrolling bars are generated by pictures larger than their boxes. It's a coding issue, except if it's intentional.

Those boxes are properly managed in Dyxum since inserting a picture larger than 1024px will not make the picture bigger. The original file will be resized to the box, allowing high-res screen to display a hi-res photo.

On some forums the picture size is checked, and refused if larger than 1024px.
See my webpage!
A-mount stuff, and few 43 stuff.
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 8187
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 15:30
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

2. Most enthusiast photographers (eg those on this forum) will show pictures on a monitor or TV with a lot more than 1024 pixels
That might be true for you, certainly not for me. I mostly use a 13" laptop to visit Dyxum and sometimes my phone. I use my calibrated 24" desktop monitor for editing, not for going to Dyxum. The picture within Dyxum now just fit the screen, bigger would be cumbersome.

I am very much against changing the size of pictures on Dyxum. If somebody wants a bigger version, they can click through to my Smugmug page.

I find it archaic to assume people watch photographs only on big screens.....
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 618
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 16:16
Hi all, interesting discussion, I will not repeat its evolution and what led me to question the utility of Dyxum's upload recommendations here. They are available in Is the World ready for 4k.

My comments are:

1) I fully support limited upload resolutions for all the reasons listed. FWIW I am one of those relics with DSL as internet service. Big photo files are a pain for me.

2) My question was why Dyxum specifies an upload size that does not correspond to either display standards or sensors. If it was simply convenient numbers that yield an upload file size of a little less than 1Mb it accomplishes that goal. Subsequent screen display adapter remapping for photo pixels to display on a screen with a different pixel ratio will have an impact on displayed sharpness.

3) All HD formats are ratios of 16:9. Pixel counts vary by HD standard, but all have a ratio of 16:9 width to height as a common denominator. They will map relatively cleanly between standards. HD was standardized in 1993, coming up on 25 years ago. The 7D was not yet even a gleam in a Minolta engineers eye. HD standards have not just fallen off the turnip wagon.

4) There are two HD standards that yield files around 1mb. They are HD Ready (720p) at 1280x720 and HD Basic at 1366x768. HD Ready produces files that are slightly smaller than the Dyxum maximum file size recommendation and scale directly to 4k resolution HD standards.

5) Question, What size does Dyxum resize to? The upload standard is recommended at 1025x960 max, but an example states that a display at 600x900 (sic) will wash out sharpening done at a higher resolution. Sharpening will also be lost on a photo sharpened at a pixel ratio that varies from that of the display.

6) There is nothing that prevents us from formatting photos for uploading at HD ready, or another HD standard. HD Ready width exceeds the Dyxum recommendation, but the height is lower. It produces a file size that is smaller than the Dyxum max recommendation. However, that gets me back to the question I asked in (5) above about Dyxum resizing. If we format to any size that varies from Dyxum's resizing (the 600x900 example seems very unlikely, even though it is a subset of 3:2 sensor ratio in portrait mode) nothing matters, the result is just varying degrees of fuzzy.

7) I respectfully suggest that the Lords of Dyxum Towers consider a minor adjustment of the picture format to an HD standard, HD Ready (720p) would work. That would also reduce upload file sizes moderately from the current recommendation while preserving sharpening.
ContaxRF, Min7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 618
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 16:41
Hi Addy, the question is not bigger pictures (larger files) but display formats and the impact width/height ratios and resizing have on display sharpness.

You may consider large screens archaic, but if you care to see detail in images large screens are the only way to do it unless you like having your eyeballs right up close and personal with the display. This chart illustrates the problem.
ContaxRF, Min7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 13501
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 17:04
I don't understand a need for a change from the current size limit based on concerns about either sensor dimensions or HD standards affecting sharpness.

If you resize a photo, resize it to be less than 1024 horizontally and less than 960 vertically. If you're picky about the resized dimensions, try some variations. Example: 6000x4000 can be proportionally resized to 1020x680, 1000x667, 960x640, etc. Then sharpen the resized version before posting according to output sharpening recommendations, which is standard practice anyway.

I suppose those with a keen interest in this can do exactly that and show the various results, either here or in a dedicated thread. Then we can all weigh in on whether or not sharpness or anything else has been compromised.
 



Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 618
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 17:52
The easiest solution is to edit and upload pictures at the resolution Dyxum resizes to. That would be easier for Dyxum too. While 1024x960 is specified as the max, there is no indication of what Dyxum resizes to, although there is an implication it might be 600x900. There is also logic to Dyxum resizing to an industry standard like HD.

That would leave the question of the impact display adapter resizing has to match screen resolution unanswered. Display adapter mavens among us might care to weigh in on what display adapters tend to do with pixel count and ratio images that vary from display ratios/pixels and what that means to us as viewers.

As others have noted, we are viewing displays of photos rather than prints most of the time these days, and the ratio is growing more lopsided towards display even as we discuss it. That means display issues matter. They matter more today than they did in the past, and will matter more tomorrow than they do today. It would seem a point of pride for Dyxum to do an elegant job of maximizing picture quality for viewers.
ContaxRF, Min7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Online
Posts: 23521
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 18:30
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

The easiest solution is to edit and upload pictures at the resolution Dyxum resizes to. That would be easier for Dyxum too. While 1024x960 is specified as the max, there is no indication of what Dyxum resizes to, although there is an implication it might be 600x900. There is also logic to Dyxum resizing to an industry standard like HD.
Just tested, Dyxum resizes to max 1028 horizontal or max 1000 vertical, whichever is limiting first. The other dimension is then below the other maximum. Hope this makes sense

Edited by pegelli - 13 December 2017 at 18:35
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 618
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2017 at 19:07
Thank you. That makes a great deal of sense and comports well with the 1024/960 guidance. That would seem to make uploads at 1024x768, the old XVGA standard a good format, Dyxum will pass them through untouched. That's a good deal for us users and for Dyxum too. The conversion from XVGAs 4:3 ratio to modern HD displays at 16:9 may still be problematic but at 4:1 pixels horizontal and 3:1 vertical it is pretty clean, no fractions or interpolations. It also lets us know that it does not matter what HD standard our displays are, the displayed images from Dyxum will look the same to all of us (same as we could see in 1990 when my Minolta 7000i was relatively new).

Edited by Cliff - 13 December 2017 at 19:43
ContaxRF, Min7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm
Back to Top
clk230 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 June 2014
Country: Australia
Location: Adelaide
Status: Offline
Posts: 190
Post Options Post Options   Quote clk230 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 07:43
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

Just tested, Dyxum resizes to max 1028 horizontal or max 1000 vertical, whichever is limiting first. The other dimension is then below the other maximum. Hope this makes sense

Firefox says this image from Brandy was originally 960px 959px but was scaled to 901px 900px. Internet Explorer says 901 x 900 pixels. Is it my browsers or is Dyxum resizing limiting the vertical dimension to 900?

Edited by clk230 - 09 January 2018 at 07:52
C & C always welcome
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Online
Posts: 23521
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 08:04
Originally posted by clk230 clk230 wrote:

Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

Just tested, Dyxum resizes to max 1028 horizontal or max 1000 vertical, whichever is limiting first. The other dimension is then below the other maximum. Hope this makes sense

Firefox says this image from Brandy was originally 960px 959px but was scaled to 901px 900px. Internet Explorer says 901 x 900 pixels. Is it my browsers or is Dyxum resizing limiting the vertical dimension to 900?
On my computer/Firefox browser this picture doesn't scale and it is shows at full size (960 x 959).

So I guess the scaling on your side is by a setting on your compter or in your browser.
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
clk230 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 June 2014
Country: Australia
Location: Adelaide
Status: Offline
Posts: 190
Post Options Post Options   Quote clk230 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 08:12
OK, so if I make Firefox or Internet Explorer full screen (F11) then it shows full size. My monitor's native resolution is 1920x1080 so perhaps both browsers resize so that whole vertical scope of the image is visible even with the window menu bar and status bus etc.
C & C always welcome
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Online
Posts: 23521
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 09:25
James, that might be it since my screen is 1200 pixels vertical.

I think there is an option somewhere in Firefox where you can instruct the browser to scale images to screen size or leave them at the size dictated by the site. But I couldn't find it right away.

I just checked with a large picture and irrespective of full screen (F11) or not it remains 1000 pix vertical, so I think that's the limit set by the Dyxum site.
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
MiPr View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Mikre Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 25 August 2006
Country: Poland
Location: Wroclaw
Status: Offline
Posts: 20385
Post Options Post Options   Quote MiPr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 09:33
Nice discussion :)
To solve the mystery once and for all: Dyxum does not rescale images Dyxum kindly asks browsers to do this operation by setting appropriate CSS properties for the image. Strictly speaking the CSS is following:

.msgBody img, .PMmsgBody img {
    max-width: 1024px;
    height: auto;
    max-height: 900px;
    margin: 0px;
    padding: 0px;
}


So, the image should be rescaled to 1024 pixels if it is wider and 900 pixels if it is taller. Exact interpretation is up to the browser. One can play with CSS in-browser (look for appropriate plugins/extensions) and override these settings.
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Dyxum Community > About Dyxum.com Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Find us on Google+

Feel free to contact us if needed.