FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Picture size for posting

Page  <1 456
Author
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: 10 January 2018 at 16:47
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

Cliff, please read what we wrote and don't misquote us. The main consideration for the size limits in pixels is set by the display sizes our viewers are using, and file size (to preserve bandwith) is a secundary (but still important) consideration.

Secondly you don't answer questions people ask in this thread, don't respond to suggestions/remarks we make but just keep harping the same points and then blaming us for not willing to listen, followed by derrogatory/cynical remarks.

I have already demonstrated that his complaint about aspect ratio distortion is meaningless. I have never seen any such distortion in anyone's images here. And since he refuses to respond to my earlier question about what he intends to do if the limits are changed, I hypothesize that he wants to create links to files that far exceed any possible dyxum restrictions, and does not want to manually downsample them first. I don't know what else to think about all this.
 



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: 10 January 2018 at 16:51
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

I hypothesize that he wants to create links to files that far exceed any possible dyxum restrictions, and does not want to manually downsample them first. I don't know what else to think about all this.

My wild guess is that all may be caused by misinterpretation of the following Wiki info:

Originally posted by Wikipedia Wikipedia wrote:

To produce the sharpest images possible on an LCD, the user must ensure the display resolution of the computer matches the native resolution of the monitor


It's a long shot thought
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: 10 January 2018 at 16:55
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

You really need to do this test in one of the picture threads (Open Views/Themed Views/......) since there the most left column (with the Dyxum.com logo at the top) doesn't show and gives more room for the picture to show.

Done!
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: 10 January 2018 at 17:10
Interesting, does that get back to the Dyxum request that we submit smaller files and that Dyxum's scripts do not themselves resize images? However, the Dyxum guidance does indicate that Dyxum expends time and effort resizing images before judging. May be two different issues.

If Dyxum simply requests the end users browser to resize that does nothing to help users with limited bandwidth. The entire file is transmitted, and it is only the display that is downsized. Internal display bandwidth is not the problem. If that is the case, why bother? Go directly to file sizes to respect bandwidth limitations.
I'd suggest adding an option for basic HD images at 1280x720. Here's how the whole thing would look as you described in the language I use to avoid me making syntax errors.

current logic and add basic HD:
If HD-width and HD-height = image-width and image-height then exit
Elseif image-width or image-height > Dyxummax-width or Dyxummax-height

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

or perhaps when Dyxum image linking to remote source files remove the browser resizing request and replace it with a line to enforce image file sizes (currently a little less than 1mb).

If imagesize > max-size exit and show error message
    link remote image
Endif

edit: MiPr this was in response to your post at 3:33 on page 2. Sorry it's so far removed from that.

Edited by Cliff - 10 January 2018 at 17:16
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: 10 January 2018 at 17:39
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

If Dyxum simply requests the end users browser to resize that does nothing to help users with limited bandwidth. The entire file is transmitted, and it is only the display that is downsized.

That's exactly the case, and I'm glad you've finally found a few spare minutes to read our answers
And yes, this does not help people with limited bandwidth and yes - this is quite frustrating at times (and for me personally).

Internal display bandwidth is not the problem. If that is the case, why bother?

No "internal bandwidth". The hot-linked photo is passed directly from the hosting site to the end-user's browser - it does not go through Dyxum at all. Why bother? This has been answered numerous times.

Go directly to file sizes to respect bandwidth limitations.
I'd suggest adding an option for basic HD images at 1280x720. Here's how the whole thing would look as you described in the language I use to avoid me making syntax errors.

Dyxum runs on a third-party software, not our homebrew. Not easy to hack it and there is always some penalty at the end of this (like problems with updates, broken compatibility, etc.)


current logic and add basic HD:
If HD-width and HD-height = image-width and image-height then exit
Elseif image-width or image-height > Dyxummax-width or Dyxummax-height

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

That's a nice one: create one-off "pass" that fits your particular needs The problem is most probably we would need as many such passes as there are Dyxumers Proper solution would be to scale the image to the size of the viewport.

or perhaps when Dyxum image linking to remote source files remove the browser resizing request and replace it with a line to enforce image file sizes (currently a little less than 1mb).

If imagesize > max-size exit and show error message
    link remote image
Endif

Hmm, that's interesting: how to check file size from JavaScript before actually downloading the file from a third-party site. Probably can be done - need to look for the solution. Personally I would love to implement such feature - just to cut off those who do not care about other's bandwidth

I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...
Back to Top
neilt3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 13 September 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Manchester.U.K
Status: Offline
Posts: 2294
Post Options Post Options   Quote neilt3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 January 2018 at 19:19
Originally posted by MiPr MiPr wrote:

Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:

Same here , looking at them on my laptop P.C which has a screen of 1280x800. The last image of 960x540 needs just a touch of movement .
If there wasn't the column on the left of the page I wouldn't need to.

Just click this icon



and feel good Tested on on my 1280x800 Win10 tablet/hybrid (Gee! It's not 16:9 but 16:10! OMG, Dyxum should take this into account - this is industry standard for such devices in the end! )



Eeee , fancy that eh !
Now they all fit on the screen with the last one being a bit smaller .

Often what that symbol in the corner was for .
see my photostream on flickr;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilt3/
C & C welcome.
 



Back to Top
mpb View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 September 2009
Country: Australia
Location: Northern NSW
Status: Offline
Posts: 1376
Post Options Post Options   Quote mpb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2018 at 08:43
Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:


Eeee , fancy that eh !
Now they all fit on the screen with the last one being a bit smaller .

Often what that symbol in the corner was for .


Ditto.
Mark
Back to Top
stiuskr View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 01 September 2006
Country: United States
Location: West Virginia
Status: Offline
Posts: 11349
Post Options Post Options   Quote stiuskr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2018 at 12:27
Originally posted by mpb mpb wrote:

Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:


Eeee , fancy that eh !
Now they all fit on the screen with the last one being a bit smaller .

Often what that symbol in the corner was for .


Ditto.


If you hover the cursor over it, it will tell you.
Rob Suits Jr.
a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3379
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2018 at 15:55
So, to summarise (correct me if I'm wrong):

1. Dyxum contains code to force the browser to set the normal (100% view) of images to be a maximum of something like 1024 wide and 900 high (I got lost in the discussion about exceptions).
Posting smaller images or thumbnails is good practice when appropriate.
If you post larger images, they get shown the same size but cost the user more bandwidth downloading (a decreasing issue for most of us, I expect, though may be of particular relevance to mobile users); OTOH it does allow people to zoom in more without pixellation. This may be useful on some occasions (eg to see camera/lens problems), and to some users with wide screens.

2. There is nothing to stop you posting images of any aspect ratio, and if they are widescreen you can post them wider than 1024 without excess bandwidth; Dyxum will tell the browser to resize the pics but you can override that if you wish, answering Cliffe's problem.

3. There is no kind of distortion introduced by Dyxum or your browser in this, except what is involved in resizing itself.

4. You can adjust or maximise the image size to suit viewing, including the little button in the top right.

So it looks to me like the problem Cliffe raised is already dealt with. Right?


Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
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: 25 December 2018 at 21:47
Thank you Miranda F.

It is disappointing that Dyxum has yet to accommodate, encourage or even acknowledge basic, industry standard, HD screen resolutions that produce images that are about the same size as or smaller than the Dyxum approved image size limits. On the off chance that anyone is interested in Dyxum encouraging photographs that map directly to native HD 16:9 display standards and monitor construction, the link to my prior post in Miranda F's post details HD screen resolutions and image size specifics.

I had hopes that in the year since the prior discussion the light bulb would have come on for some in the Dyxum administrative hierarchy and that we would have some "resolution". But, alas, it has not happened.

Merry Christmas to all.
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: 27026
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 December 2018 at 22:01
Hi Cliff,

Merry Christmas to you too.

Just to let you know, our lights are on (yes, all bulbs) and if you want to show images in the HD aspect ratio of 16:9 just make them 1024 x 576 and the job is done.

And if you don't and make them 16:9 but larger the forum app will shrink them to that size when shown on the forum, but if someone wants to see them larger then right-clicking on them and choosing "show image" will show them in the size you are hosting them or shrunk limited by the screen real-estate of the viewer. Only people with limited bandwith might see your images loading slower.

I hope your bulbs will come on now as well

Edited by pegelli - 25 December 2018 at 22:06
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Dyxum Community > About Dyxum.com Page  <1 456

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.