FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Picture size for posting

Page  <12345 6>
Author
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 27044
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 09:53
Thanks Mirek, it's clear you know a lot more about this than I do

Only question is now what setting in my browser causes the pictures to be scaled to 1000 pix vertical, as far as I know I never changed/plugged anything in my browser to override the 900 pix that the Dyxum site seems to "ask" for.

The horizontal scaling is in line with 1024 pix.    
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: 21307
Post Options Post Options   Quote MiPr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 10:11
That's because there is additional rule in the CSS (which I missed - sorry) which overrides the 900px restriction:

@media only screen and (min-height: 1000px) {
.msgBody img, .PMmsgBody img {
    max-height: 1000px;
}


This rule basically says that if the screen is at least 1000px high then the picture will be rescaled to 1000px vertically instead of 900px.
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 27044
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 10:37
Thanks Mirek
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: 702
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 16:08
For years the High Definition (HD) aspect ratio of 16:9 has been the industry standard for screens. Even Apple has adopted it on their 5k screens. It will be standard for years to come.

Most photos these days are viewed on screens. ALL photos on Dyxum are viewed on screens. It would seem reasonable for Dyxum to consider sizing to the industry HD aspect ratio standard screen.

HD Ready (720p) is the base 16:9 aspect ratio screen format. At 1280x720 and .92mp it generates an image that is slightly smaller than the current Dyxum standard at 1024x960 and .98mp. It is thus even more bandwidth friendly than the Dyxum standard.

HD Basic at 1366x768 and 1.05mp is only slightly larger than the current Dyxum standard and does not require materially more bandwidth.

HD (1080p) at 1920x1080 and 2mp is by far the most prevalent HD 16:9 aspect ratio. For me with slow broadband (DSL) 1080p provides acceptable download speeds.

When we remap to aspect ratios that differ from the native screen aspect ratio image quality degrades. The image pixels shape does not match the screen pixels shape. Consider the odd pixel remapping required to put a Dyxum standard (but never a screen or print standard) 1024x960 4:3.75 image on an industry standard 16:9 screen. It is not pretty.

Part of why we hang out at Dyxum is appreciation of the amazing technology that Sony has brought to cameras. We would benefit from adopting display standards that embrace and enhance rather than degrade the images those cameras help us produce.

Please Dyxum consider at least allowing us to upload HD ready (720p) images at 1280x720 that are smaller and even more bandwidth friendly than the bandwidth conserving Dyxum limits while providing high definition images. It's a win win.
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, 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: Offline
Posts: 27044
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 16:40
Cliff, sorry, I'm do not understand what you are asking for.

First, aspect ratio is set by the photographer, not by the site, we don't want every picture elongated or shortened on one side to make every image fit the 16:9 aspect ratio. That will look really ugly. And if the aspect ratio is not changed your last question to set the limits at 1280x720 will make portrait oriented pictures even smaller then today, when they can be 900 pixels high

Second, if you want all viewers to see your pictures on Dyxum exactly like you processed and sharpened them just make sure you upload it with a horizontal size < 1024 pixels and a vertical size < 900 pixels. Once you do that the screen size and/or pixel dimensions of the viewer's screen don't matter anymore. Every pixel of the image is then 1 pixel on the screen without any degradation or additional artifacts introduced. It will just have more or less black background around it.

We are looking to maybe increase the horizontal dimension some but we're first looking at the distribution of screen sizes of our viewers (our web app allows us to do that). Until now the strategy of Dyxum has always been to be most sensitive to people with smaller screens and bandwith so no guarantee it will change in the short term.
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: 21307
Post Options Post Options   Quote MiPr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 16:41
Cliff, I hope you noticed that still images produced by all cameras are 3:2, not 16:9?

EDITED: except those oldies which produced 4:3 or those which were forced to use non-standard aspect ratio (which I personally never do). And I agree with Pieter on this - aspect ratio is decided by the photog not Dyxum.
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...
 



Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 2580
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 17:08
I am using 5:4 screens at work. I have a 21:9 (actually 64:27) screen at home. The current iMacs may be 16:9, but they used to be 16:10.

I rather dislike 3:2 pictures, though I am often lazy and don't crop. 16:9 is better at least for landscape, but not really wide enough. I notice that nearly everything I've been watching outside of YouTube has been wider than 16:9. 16:9 is not an aspect ratio anyone chooses to use. It is just a TV industry compromise, just like the previous 4:3.
Sony A7II A6000 A77II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11 MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9802
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 17:24
The aspect ratio of the screen is irrelevant to the aspect ratio of the picture as the picture is not shown full screen on Dyxum. There is always something to the left of the picture.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14208
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 18:21
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

When we remap to aspect ratios that differ from the native screen aspect ratio image quality degrades. The image pixels shape does not match the screen pixels shape.

My camera uses square pixels no matter what aspect ratio I choose for capture, or how I crop the result, or the pixel dimensions I choose when I downsize the final image for some purpose. The pixels remain square in shape; and my 1920x1080 monitor also uses square pixels. No pixel shape changing occurs at any time. Your cameras are just like mine, so that can't be a problem. If your monitor somehow uses non-square pixels, I feel sorry for you; but that can't be dyxum's responsibility.

Consider the odd pixel remapping required to put a Dyxum standard (but never a screen or print standard) 1024x960 4:3.75 image on an industry standard 16:9 screen. It is not pretty.

I fail to understand this. What happens is that you get extra unused space on the sides. It's unavoidable unless you deliberately distort the image to fill the monitor.

Please Dyxum consider at least allowing us to upload HD ready (720p) images at 1280x720 that are smaller and even more bandwidth friendly than the bandwidth conserving Dyxum limits while providing high definition images. It's a win win.

If you're saying that you're trying to post images that exceed dyxum's horizontal limit and also exceed its vertical limit and the end results get squished in one dimension or the other (is that in fact what's happening?) then stop doing that! Regardless of the aspect ratio of your images, just make sure that neither dimension exceeds the limit and all will be well. Your aspect ratio will remain as you made it and your pixels will remain square. You will have to accept some extra unused space on the sides, though.

Also, your suggestion would force portrait-oriented images into an even smaller area than they are at preset.

Folks, I myself have no special need for a revised limit of 1280 pixels wide (or 720 pixels high). Does anyone else here? I wouldn't object to extending the limits in some way, but it seems unnecessary to me.
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 702
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 18:55
Hi Pegelli, What I am proposing is for Dyxum to consider accepting a photo sized to HD Ready (720p) 1280x720 pixel 16:9 aspect ratio image rather than resizing to a Dyxum max of 1024. It would be less work for Dyxum, allow high definition images, and produce a smaller file than 1024x960.

Portrait orientation images are always problematic on landscape oriented screens. I have dealt with that by using a two display setup. One landscape and the other turned portrait, just as we do with the camera to take a portrait orientation picture. That allows the HD 16:9 aspect ratio to be maintained. It is a twofer, and relatively cheap at about $150.

Hi Mikre, The Sony cameras I have all allow users to choose between 3:2 (traditional 35mm) and 16:9 aspect ratios. Sony has recognized that the HD 16:9 aspect ratio is what most images are viewed at on screen and that is what the world is doing. Display has replaced print as the dominant viewing paradigm. A topic for another thread might be "What aspect ratio do we shoot at, and why?"

Hi Matthew, Are you using engineering workstations at work? The Ultrawide you have at home is interesting, and an odd beastie. Looks like UHD (4k), DCI (4k cinema) and Ultra wide TV all have 2160 pixel height and stretch the horizontal from 3840 for UHD to 5120 for Ultra wide.

Yep, 16:9 is a TV industry compromise, and the LED screen manufacturers (all 4 or 5 of them) are producing 16:9 screens by the hundreds of millions. Economies of scale and competitive pricing pressure make them both high definition and cheap. Other standards/aspect ratios for special applications in non price sensitive environments like engineering will always have a niche.

The price premium of producing other aspect ratios at much lower volumes make them unattractive for general use. There is no better proof of that than Apple abandoning its proprietary 16:10 ratio and adopting the industry standard 16:9 for 5k. That is not something Apple often does. The cost premium for 5k @ 16:10 must have stunned even them. Plus, the resolution of 5k over 4k is invisible at more than a foot or so away, even on a large screen. There were few benefits over HD 4k to lure customers to pay a serious price premium.

Hi Addy, remapping image aspect ratios that differ from the native screen aspect ratio by definition causes image degradation. A less than full screen image that maintains 16:9 aspect ratio still maps to native screen hardware. Other ratios do not.

edit: The pixels may be square, but when the display ratio does not match the image ratio, something has to give. They do not map directly 1:1.

Allowing a standard HD aspect ratio that matches most screen displays with a smaller file size lets folks use a standard format and means less resizing for Dyxum. There is no down side for anyone.


Edited by Cliff - 09 January 2018 at 19:07
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, 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
MiPr View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Mikre Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 25 August 2006
Country: Poland
Location: Wroclaw
Status: Offline
Posts: 21307
Post Options Post Options   Quote MiPr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:07
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

Hi Mikre, The Sony cameras I have all allow users to choose between 3:2 (traditional 35mm) and 16:9 aspect ratios. Sony has recognized that the HD 16:9 aspect ratio is what most images are viewed at on screen and that is what the world is doing. Display has replaced print as the dominant viewing paradigm. A topic for another thread might be "What aspect ratio do we shoot at, and why?"

1) I'm shooting RAW and TBH I to not care about "odd" aspect ratios. I looked around for what image formats were used in photography and although many different (and sometimes strange) were used - I failed to find any indication of 16:9.

2) The screen aspect ratio is completely irrelevant because in a browser you never look at the photo full-screen - it is always "immersed" in the web page, i.e. there are other elements which "disturb" the ratio of the display.

3) On high-resolution displays (say: full HD and above) I never ever browse Internet in full screen mode - the browser is always smaller. I just like to see the desktop and other widows. The only situation when I use full-screen mode is my tablet.

4) As other pointed out: display aspect ratio has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the photo itself. Personally I prefer to stay with original 3:2 and sometimes 1:1, but I've seen a lot of photos where people were cropping freely (e.g. my daughter) effectively choosing the ratio that "fits the photo" and has nothing to do with the display size/ratio.
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14208
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:09
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

What I am proposing is for Dyxum to consider accepting a photo sized to HD Ready (720p) 1280x720 pixel 16:9 aspect ratio image rather than resizing to a Dyxum max of 1024.

What most of the rest of us are saying is that there's nothing special about either the 16:9 ratio or the 1280 pixel number. Whatever the aspect ratios of your images, they will be retained if you keep the dimensions within the limits when you downsample them for presentation. Increasing the horizontal 1024 limit to 1280 would allow for slightly greater displayed area on the monitor, but nothing else meaningful.

But I just realized something: Are you intending to link to high-res 16:9 images that have not actually been downsampled by you to 1280x720?
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 702
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:12
Originally posted by MiPr MiPr wrote:


1) I'm shooting RAW and TBH I to not care about "odd" aspect ratios. I looked around for what image formats were used in photography and although many different (and sometimes strange) were used - I failed to find any indication of 16:9.


You need look no further than your Sony camera menu. It offers the selection of 3:2 or 16:9 aspect ratios.
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, 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
MiPr View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Mikre Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 25 August 2006
Country: Poland
Location: Wroclaw
Status: Offline
Posts: 21307
Post Options Post Options   Quote MiPr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:19
Cliff, I assure you that I'm well aware of what image formats my camera offers and where to find the relevant menu option, but thank you for guiding me Anyways, please let me re-iterate: I'm shooting RAW, which means I'm shooting 3:2. Period.
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  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.