FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Picture size for posting

Page  <1 23456>
Author
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14176
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:20
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

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.

We're repeatedly trying to explain that the screen aspect ratio is irrelevant in practical use. The only situation in which that matters is if you require an image to use the entire screen space. If you don't require that - and the majority of us don't - then any image aspect ratio can live correctly within the space of any screen aspect ratio, but with some unused space somewhere.

What you really seem to be objecting to is downsampling.
 



Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 26434
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:20
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) 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.


Cliff, I numbered the points in your post I want to react to

1) Basically you're asking to allow the widest size to be 1280, the current vertical size you're asking is already within the limit

2) It's already a problem and your proposal turns it into an even smaller picture (and bigger problem). Why would we have to be more sympathetic for landscape oriented pictures at the expense of showing portrait pictures smaller. Not everybody has the money or space to set up two screens like you propose.

3) I always shoot native camera 3:2, why throw away pixels, you can still do that in post and my final pictures are in any aspect ratio that works for the composition

4) Just process your pictures within the Dyxum requested size limits and there will never be any image degradation. Anything bigger is a gamble.

5) I don't think this holds for files within the size limits, and the downside is big for any portrait oriented pictures or pictures with an aspect ratio that hit the vertical limit before the horizontal limit.


Your idea works well if everybody shoots landscape oriented pictures with a 16:9 aspect ratio, but just look around the site, the majority of pictures have a different aspect ratio and this should be the choice of the photographer, not the site.
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9469
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:24
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

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.
I do not get this. The "picture" that is shown on the screen is Dyxum with the picture in there, not just the picture you posted there.
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: 701
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:35
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

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?


Maintaining an aspect ratio that maps directly to the screen is the issue. Odd mappings like 1024x960 yield a 4:3.75 aspect ratio that overlays a 16:9 on most displays.

I'm not asking to force anyone to change anything they are doing, just to add a simple industry standard option that is a smaller file that directly supports the overwhelming majority of both current screens and those to come, and has native support in Sony cameras.

FUHD (8k 4320p) is also 16:9, so the industry standard aspect ratios are not going anywhere even with 33mp files that will display the full resolution of a 24mp sensor with some left over.   
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: 26434
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:47
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:


Maintaining an aspect ratio that maps directly to the screen is the issue. Odd mappings like 1024x960 yield a 4:3.75 aspect ratio that overlays a 16:9 on most displays.
Pls explain why. Currently on Dyxum any picture is shown with 1 pixel of the image is 1 pixel on the screen. If you comply with our request to not link to images larger then max 1028 by max 900 there will be no remapping, no overlay, no artifacts. Only if your picture is bigger it will be downsized by your browser (as Mirek explained). The part that is not used by the linked image is simply the dark dyxum website background. I can't see what your proposal would do to change that other then that landscape pictures will be shown broader at the expense of showing portrait oriented pictures smaller.
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: Online
Posts: 21171
Post Options Post Options   Quote MiPr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:56
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

Maintaining an aspect ratio that maps directly to the screen is the issue. Odd mappings like 1024x960 yield a 4:3.75 aspect ratio that overlays a 16:9 on most displays.

Where did you come with the 1024x960 aspect ratio from?
Dyxum imposes maximum width to be no more than 1024 and maximum height to be no more than 900 (unless on high-resolution display where this limit becomes 1000 - as explained above). This has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the photo. If your photo is 1920x1080 then it will be resized proportionally to 1024x576. If your photo is 1080x1920 then it will be resized to about 506x900. In both cases the aspect ratio of 16:9 (or 9:16) will be preserved.

p.s.
Of course we can always discuss the problem of rescaling the photo (i.e. whether the quality is kept or not) but whether it will be scaled down by 1.5 or 1.875 IMO does not really matter.

Edited by MiPr - 09 January 2018 at 20:08
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: 14176
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 20:42
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

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?

Maintaining an aspect ratio that maps directly to the screen is the issue. Odd mappings like 1024x960 yield a 4:3.75 aspect ratio that overlays a 16:9 on most displays.

I notice you didn't answer yes or no to the question.
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 701
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 21:37
I have not asked to make anyone change anything they are doing.

I have asked Dyxum to consider allowing one special case that is the minimum level of industry standard HD screen resolution. Perhaps Dyxum's guidance could could continue to be "Max size 1024x960" and add "or 720p, 1280x720, 16:9 aspect ratio". Dyxum would then allow the specific minimum HD display standard recognized world wide and baked into most of the screens manufactured in recent years or projected into the foreseeable future.

1024x960 comes from http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_page1.html

Displaying portrait images on a landscape oriented screen sucks no matter how you jiggle the pixels. Adding a second screen turned to portrait is a cheap and easy solution to the problem. A quick search shows 1080p screens currently as low as $89. That is less than Dyxumers are paying for an SD card, and far less than the cheapest lens Sony sells for E or A mount cameras. It does not get much better than that for a cheap solution to a physical orientation problem.

I have no interest in debating how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin. It does surprise me that a number of folks here are blissfully willing to ignore worldwide display standards that Sony accommodated as a native sensor mode as long ago as the A100.



Edited by Cliff - 09 January 2018 at 21:40
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
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14176
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 21:46
So I don't get an answer to my question? Why not?

In the meantime, let's do a practical experiment. I'm posting three 16:9 images in different resolutions:

1920x1080:



1280x720:



960x540:



I'm looking at them on a 1920x1080 monitor using Win7, IE11 and also a recent version of Chrome. What hardware/OS/browsers are you using?

I don't see any aspect ratio issues in any of them under any conditions. What are you seeing, and what exactly is it that you want to see instead?
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 26434
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 21:56
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

I have not asked to make anyone change anything they are doing.

I have asked Dyxum to consider allowing one special case that is the minimum level of industry standard HD screen resolution. Perhaps Dyxum's guidance could could continue to be "Max size 1024x960" and add "or 720p, 1280x720, 16:9 aspect ratio". Dyxum would then allow the specific minimum HD display standard recognized world wide and baked into most of the screens manufactured in recent years or projected into the foreseeable future.

OK, I think I finally understand what you want. You don't mind the current restrictions in place but allow one extra use case and allow landscape pictures with a 16:9 aspect ratio to be shown at 1280 x 720 independent from the existing restrictions. I'm sorry, unless MiPr tells me differently I don't think the forum software can have multiple dimensions for maximum horizontal/vertical pixels based on the aspect ratio of the linked image. But maybe he can play with the software to do it.


Btw, did you know that if in Firefox you right click the image and click the "view image" option from the drop down menu you'll see only the image, without any restrictions (so the full size of the linked image) and without any Dyxum "clap-trap" around it, just a dark grey background. Maybe that will help you see 16:9 pictures larger then they appear in the standard website background.

Edited by pegelli - 09 January 2018 at 22:15
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14176
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 22:16
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

Btw, did you know that if in Firefox you right click the image and click the top option from the drop down menu you'll see only the image, without any restrictions (so the full size of the linked image) and without any Dyxum "clap-trap" around it, just a dark grey background. Maybe that will help you see 16:9 pictures larger then they appear in the standard website background.

The same thing is available in Chrome, followed by pressing F11 to go to full screen if necessary. It's practically effortless.
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2446
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 22:18
I don't get why there is a maximum limit at all. The mobile Dyxum code seems to resize all images to fit the browser. I don't see why the desktop code couldn't do the same. I am not very familiar with CSS coding though. I guess the desktop code is trying to maintain 1:1 mapping except with larger images.

1024 pixel wide images look pretty small on my 14" 2560x1440 laptop screen. I imagine they are really tiny on a 4K laptop.

Edited by QuietOC - 09 January 2018 at 22:25
Sony A68 A77II A6000 A7II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
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: 9469
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 22:23
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

In the meantime, let's do a practical experiment. I'm posting three 16:9 images in different resolutions:

1920x1080:

[snip]

1280x720:

[snip]

960x540:

[snip]

I'm looking at them on a 1920x1080 monitor using Win7, IE11 and also a recent version of Chrome. What hardware/OS/browsers are you using?
I get a horizontal scrollbar with these.....
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: 14176
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2018 at 23:17
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

I'm looking at them on a 1920x1080 monitor using Win7, IE11 and also a recent version of Chrome. What hardware/OS/browsers are you using?
I get a horizontal scrollbar with these...

That's not too helpful unless we know what you're viewing them with. There are no horizontal scroll bars here as long as I make my browser window wide enough. If I make the window too narrow I get one scroll bar under the last line of text, as I would expect.

The first two images are limited to 1024 pixels wide, also as I would expect. The third appears only slightly smaller at 960 pixels wide.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Dyxum Community > About Dyxum.com Page  <1 23456>

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

Feel free to contact us if needed.