Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
Image size a bit too restrictive?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


trenchdigger


Nov 20, 2003, 5:31 PM
Post #1 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Image size a bit too restrictive?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Let me start out by noting that I do a lot of graphic design type stuff for work, so I know how to use the features of Photoshop and Fireworks to minimize file size while losing as little quality as possible. But to knock a file down to the "low" quality limit of 48k, you'll have to either shrink it to about 200x300 pixels or use jpeg compression to the fullest and shrink it that way. One way you end up with something that's not much greater than a thumbnail photo in size, and the other you end up with a pixelated blurry mess. I recently submitted a photo topo which had some text and lines drawn on it. The size limits resulted in a file that's lost much of detail on the rock and has rendered the text difficult to read. Similar problems exist with the medium size photos. A much better quality photo could be uploaded if the file size was just a little larger. Both of the current limits won't let you get anywhere near the dimensional limits unless the "photo" is a few black and white lines. Suggesting a more realistic dimensional size might help those that don't understand what a "small" or "medium" sized image should be.

I would suggest something in the range of 60-70k for the low quality size and something around 140-150k for the medium quality. If not, it seems that some topo photos might need to be submittied at medium rather than low to be useful to the routes database.

I know web space is expensive, but most people don't run their monitors at 640x480 anymore. A photo sized at under 48k is really small.

~Adam~


rockprodigy


Nov 20, 2003, 5:49 PM
Post #2 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

That's why I decided not to submit any photos.

I was about to post all my photos for a guidebook I recently published, then when I saw how crappy the first one came out, I decided it wasn't worth it.


Partner tim


Nov 20, 2003, 7:08 PM
Post #3 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Used to be the limits were set at 64K for low, 128K for medium, 512K for high.

Dunno why that would have changed. I can't keep track of the tree anymore...


jughead


Nov 20, 2003, 7:44 PM
Post #4 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 292

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

looking at the quality of the photos on this site do you think that its too restrictive?


climbs4fun
Moderator

Nov 20, 2003, 9:48 PM
Post #5 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9679

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Let me start out by noting that I do a lot of graphic design type stuff for work, so I know how to use the features of Photoshop and Fireworks to minimize file size while losing as little quality as possible. But to knock a file down to the "low" quality limit of 48k, you'll have to either shrink it to about 200x300 pixels or use jpeg compression to the fullest and shrink it that way. One way you end up with something that's not much greater than a thumbnail photo in size, and the other you end up with a pixelated blurry mess. I recently submitted a photo topo which had some text and lines drawn on it. The size limits resulted in a file that's lost much of detail on the rock and has rendered the text difficult to read. Similar problems exist with the medium size photos. A much better quality photo could be uploaded if the file size was just a little larger. Both of the current limits won't let you get anywhere near the dimensional limits unless the "photo" is a few black and white lines. Suggesting a more realistic dimensional size might help those that don't understand what a "small" or "medium" sized image should be.

I would suggest something in the range of 60-70k for the low quality size and something around 140-150k for the medium quality. If not, it seems that some topo photos might need to be submittied at medium rather than low to be useful to the routes database.

I know web space is expensive, but most people don't run their monitors at 640x480 anymore. A photo sized at under 48k is really small.

~Adam~

Hey Adam, I am also a graphic designer. I have found that if you bring it down in size first and then use the save for web feature in Photoshop 7, you can get it to the medium size fairly easily without losing too much. But you are right, the limits are fairly low.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Nov 20, 2003, 9:49 PM
Post #6 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9679

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Let me start out by noting that I do a lot of graphic design type stuff for work, so I know how to use the features of Photoshop and Fireworks to minimize file size while losing as little quality as possible. But to knock a file down to the "low" quality limit of 48k, you'll have to either shrink it to about 200x300 pixels or use jpeg compression to the fullest and shrink it that way. One way you end up with something that's not much greater than a thumbnail photo in size, and the other you end up with a pixelated blurry mess. I recently submitted a photo topo which had some text and lines drawn on it. The size limits resulted in a file that's lost much of detail on the rock and has rendered the text difficult to read. Similar problems exist with the medium size photos. A much better quality photo could be uploaded if the file size was just a little larger. Both of the current limits won't let you get anywhere near the dimensional limits unless the "photo" is a few black and white lines. Suggesting a more realistic dimensional size might help those that don't understand what a "small" or "medium" sized image should be.

I would suggest something in the range of 60-70k for the low quality size and something around 140-150k for the medium quality. If not, it seems that some topo photos might need to be submittied at medium rather than low to be useful to the routes database.

I know web space is expensive, but most people don't run their monitors at 640x480 anymore. A photo sized at under 48k is really small.

~Adam~

Hey Adam, I am also a graphic designer. I have found that if you bring it down in size first and then use the save for web feature in Photoshop 7, you can get it to the medium size fairly easily without losing too much. But you are right, the limits are fairly low.


trenchdigger


Nov 20, 2003, 10:26 PM
Post #7 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2003
Posts: 1447

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think a newer version of PS might help me a little too... I've had better results using Fireworks 3 than the old PS 5 that I have. It seems to compress a little better without losing quite as much. Still, as Climbs4fun noted, the limit seems a little low.

Even in many of the top ranked photos, the results of Jpeg compression are pretty obvious. The only photos that don't really suffer much are the ones with shallow DOF (they have less detail and larger patches of similar pixels which lends itself well to jpeg compression) or ones that have a lot of space filled with a solid color.

~Adam~


maculated


Nov 20, 2003, 10:43 PM
Post #8 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2001
Posts: 6179

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You guys have to realize that photo storage takes up space and space cost money.


eric


Nov 20, 2003, 10:45 PM
Post #9 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
I think a newer version of PS might help me a little too... I've had better results using Fireworks 3 than the old PS 5 that I have. It seems to compress a little better without losing quite as much. Still, as Climbs4fun noted, the limit seems a little low.

The newer software definitely works better.

It's worth noting that part of the reason for the lower file size is consideration for users who don't have broadband. On a shoddy dialup connection, even 48k is slow. As recently as 2 months ago I effectively couldn't view many photos here because it would take forever (crappy dialup, tiny international pipe).

My advice to people is to (1) crop (2) cut size (3) compress.

OTH, what I'd really like to see is multiple sizes available for each photo. Most gallery software (eg IDS) does this automatically -- you upload a photo and that's the native size. Smaller sizes and a thumbnail are automatically generated. The smallest size is displayed and the viewer has the option of seeing a larger size -- even make this a sticky preference.
We shouldn't care about the native size except as an issue of disk space.


biff


Nov 20, 2003, 10:46 PM
Post #10 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 4, 2001
Posts: 851

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I set the limits in May. I did it because there were loads of crappy photos that were way to large.

You have a good point: a detailed topo of a large area will not be able to fit within the limits of the low catagory. I think that The photo editors should be able to understand that , and will allow a topo to be submitted as medium.

Another reason I reduced the size limits was becasue some people still use dial up. A 150k file can take a minute to download.

If there is a good reason to change them I don't have a problem with it, but right now try to fit witin the limits of low .. if you can .. try splitting your file into smaller sections and uploading it as multiple images.
If you still have problems with a spesific file .. send it to me, I can help you out.

eric: When I implemented the rezise thing .. disk space was an issue .. I think tim has sent more HDD's so maybe that issue has been resolved so we can serve up different sizes.


eric


Nov 21, 2003, 12:23 AM
Post #11 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
eric: When I implemented the rezise thing .. disk space was an issue .. I think tim has sent more HDD's so maybe that issue has been resolved so we can serve up different sizes.

Oh yes, I know. It's still an issue. That entire directory, with only a couple of days worth of originals, is 1.4 GB, and I think you can count on that being 3-4 times current levels if you have to have multiple sizes. Say 5 GB now, growing at what crazy rate? I'd guess, conservatively if we did that we'd be at 20-40 GB by the end of next year. Wild guess.


thomasribiere


Nov 21, 2003, 3:49 AM
Post #12 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

gee! I still use adobe photodeluxe 1.0!!!!!! I tried to upload photoshop 6.0 but it didn't work. :(
I have problems with my photos : they seem so blurry on this site while they are not at all, my camera is good, maybe it's teh scan or this old photoshoP??? When I see some pics (climbnow1 and his very bright pics, I'm disgusted, nut I think he scans slides or negs).


goldencrowbar


Nov 21, 2003, 5:35 AM
Post #13 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 8, 2003
Posts: 112

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Guys, last time I saw any stats, more people were using dial up than baroadband for personal use. My bet is that alot of folks are posting from their jobs ( I do it too sometimes). In fact I've seen some great low shots on this site. The file sizes here are big enough.


overlord


Nov 21, 2003, 6:26 AM
Post #14 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

i also find the filesizes big enough. its easy to keep the size down and still retain quality.


callmeraymon


Nov 21, 2003, 12:12 PM
Post #15 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 4, 2003
Posts: 89

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

just wondering... how many people that post actually paid for photoshop?


climber49er


Nov 21, 2003, 12:43 PM
Post #16 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 1404

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yes, I paid for photoshop. Mucho dinero.


jerryw


Nov 22, 2003, 10:23 PM
Post #17 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 2, 2003
Posts: 156

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
eric: When I implemented the rezise thing .. disk space was an issue .. I think tim has sent more HDD's so maybe that issue has been resolved so we can serve up different sizes.

Oh yes, I know. It's still an issue. That entire directory, with only a couple of days worth of originals, is 1.4 GB, and I think you can count on that being 3-4 times current levels if you have to have multiple sizes. Say 5 GB now, growing at what crazy rate? I'd guess, conservatively if we did that we'd be at 20-40 GB by the end of next year. Wild guess.

But if you're going with that calculation, if you really think about it 40 GB isn't a whole lot of stuff. These days you can buy a 120 GB harddrive IDE for $100, and about $200 for SCSI. I'm sure if enough of us donating a couple of buys, this definitely can be accomplished. I, for one, would be willing to donate to see some higher quality photos. I've seen many that I'd love to get in 1280x1024 or more to be used as my desktop wallpaper.


eric


Nov 23, 2003, 12:50 AM
Post #18 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
But if you're going with that calculation, if you really think about it 40 GB isn't a whole lot of stuff. These days you can buy a 120 GB harddrive IDE for $100, and about $200 for SCSI.

It is if you need to back it up and it's only one component of a large and complex website. We have more drives installed now, but space needs to be budgeted.


tenn_dawg


Nov 23, 2003, 1:26 AM
Post #19 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 13, 2002
Posts: 3045

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
just wondering... how many people that post actually paid for photoshop?

I've got a hot copy. I was able to snag the file and a serial off of Kazaa (Oh sh!t, the FBI isn't watching are they?) But even if I didn't, I am able to use PhotoShop7 at school for free.

They've got a bitching slide scanner too.

BUT back to the real conversation here. I don't think that the current photo restrictions are too bad. For internet viewing 96K (medium) is pretty damn big, and good enough for any FrontPage shot here. The HIGH filesize really dosen't have much realistic application for a site such as this.

If Y'all want wallpaper shots, then I'd suggest a website dedicated to hosting those kind's of files. RC.com dosen't have much to gain from providing the bandwidth to supply people with wallpaper quality/size shots.

Just my 2 cents (even though, with current trade rates, my 2 cents are worth about 30 bucks of any other losers money...har)

Travis


jerryw


Nov 23, 2003, 10:02 AM
Post #20 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 2, 2003
Posts: 156

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
It is if you need to back it up and it's only one component of a large and complex website. We have more drives installed now, but space needs to be budgeted.
Okay that's fair.


jerryw


Nov 23, 2003, 10:07 AM
Post #21 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 2, 2003
Posts: 156

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Actually speaking of wallpapers, a search on Google came up with a few good results, and a bunch of crappy ones.

edit: grammar.


Partner philbox
Moderator

Nov 23, 2003, 1:54 PM
Post #22 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13105

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just a thought on another issue with large size pictures is that those pics are much easier to rip off the site and no monetary payment goes to the author of this material. The smaller size pics are like samplers and commercial interest would have to go to the author and ask for permission to use a larger sized original at the commensurate compensation scales.


eric


Nov 23, 2003, 5:52 PM
Post #23 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Just a thought on another issue with large size pictures is that those pics are much easier to rip off the site and no monetary payment goes to the author of this material. The smaller size pics are like samplers and commercial interest would have to go to the author and ask for permission to use a larger sized original at the commensurate compensation scales.

Yes, but it's entirely up to the user what size photo they post. People who care can always post smaller and/or watermarked versions. We can also make it optional when you post the photo.


Partner tim


Nov 23, 2003, 6:47 PM
Post #24 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Oh yes, I know. It's still an issue. That entire directory, with only a couple of days worth of originals, is 1.4 GB, and I think you can count on that being 3-4 times current levels if you have to have multiple sizes. Say 5 GB now, growing at what crazy rate? I'd guess, conservatively if we did that we'd be at 20-40 GB by the end of next year. Wild guess.

No worries, I just allocated a 36GB LVM volume for photos. Personally I'd rather use the majority of the space for the stock agency idea (in the cases where the photographers want to market their works through the site). But maybe having a couple sizes would be reasonable. I don't much care, we can always buy a JBOD if space gets tight. Or we could be cheap, and prune the unpopular crap. Or do something else.

So....

Can we up the 'medium' limit to 128K now? It's sooooooo hard to get a decent-sized pic at decent quality up as medium. Pretty please, don't make me act unilaterally :-).


Partner tim


Nov 23, 2003, 6:56 PM
Post #25 of 32 (2370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861

Re: Image size a bit too restrictive? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
But if you're going with that calculation, if you really think about it 40 GB isn't a whole lot of stuff. These days you can buy a 120 GB harddrive IDE for $100, and about $200 for SCSI.

Sure, if you like slow drives and/or don't care about redundancy. God knows we've never had a mob of angry users get their panties in a twist about that...

In reply to:
I'm sure if enough of us donating a couple of buys, this definitely can be accomplished. I, for one, would be willing to donate to see some higher quality photos. I've seen many that I'd love to get in 1280x1024 or more to be used as my desktop wallpaper.

That's more up to the photographer than the viewer... some folks don't necessarily want to give away their masterpieces. As a pay-to-play type of thing, though, if the market's there we will be more than happy to string together a bunch of JBODs.

NB. I administer the server from DC. It lives in LA. I don't like hardware failures, I don't like slow drives, and I don't like it when I have to give a crap about a part dying (working for Google teaches a person many things, chief among them that "all computer hardware is junk, but drives are the worst junk of all"). So we go for n+1 of the relatively-good-stuff and take offsite backups Just In Case...

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook