If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric Stevens said: I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI]. The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit. Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. On a 3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200. Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such a small size? We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises 10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for historical reasons? Does it matter? Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the shriveled image does justice to the original. Have a go. Regards, Eric Stevens For my SI submissions and other time I post links to my images, I usually size dimensions to 1280 x XXX and keep file size down to around 300KB without seriously noticeable degradation as viewed on on a display. Since these are intended for display viewing and not printing I don't see too much of an issue regarding reducing file size to around 300KB with dimensions of 1280 x XXX. That is not exactly "shriveled" or "postage stamp" sized. Also, consider that most folks post to show the image to others so they can view the image as intended, not to pixel peep. Scrolling around a massive oversized image (which admittedly can be scaled to fit a display most satisfyingly) at 100% can be as irritating as viewing a pixelated "postage stamp". Sizes vary but I find my images generally come out at about 800 x 600 or less when reduced to 300KB. At level I find I find have often lost texture and detail to an extent that the image is degraded in my eyes. But then, I know the original. So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg Cropping is changing the image. and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something more complex in which detail and texture is important. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric Stevens said: I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI]. The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit. Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. On a 3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200. Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such a small size? We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises 10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for historical reasons? Does it matter? Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the shriveled image does justice to the original. Have a go. Regards, Eric Stevens For my SI submissions and other time I post links to my images, I usually size dimensions to 1280 x XXX and keep file size down to around 300KB without seriously noticeable degradation as viewed on on a display. Since these are intended for display viewing and not printing I don't see too much of an issue regarding reducing file size to around 300KB with dimensions of 1280 x XXX. That is not exactly "shriveled" or "postage stamp" sized. Also, consider that most folks post to show the image to others so they can view the image as intended, not to pixel peep. Scrolling around a massive oversized image (which admittedly can be scaled to fit a display most satisfyingly) at 100% can be as irritating as viewing a pixelated "postage stamp". Sizes vary but I find my images generally come out at about 800 x 600 or less when reduced to 300KB. At level I find I find have often lost texture and detail to an extent that the image is degraded in my eyes. But then, I know the original. So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg Cropping is changing the image. and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something more complex in which detail and texture is important. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:13:19 +0100, Pete A
wrote: On 2011-09-10 10:59:40 +0100, Eric Stevens said: I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI]. rec.photo.equipment.35mm The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit. Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. I think you mean MP not MB. For a given image size in MP, the JPEG file size depends mainly on image content. Noise and/or sharpening will increase the file size required for an acceptable JPEG, often considerably. Doesn't JPEG use three bytes per pixel (24 bit colour)? In which case the uncomressed image in bytes will be three times the image size in pixels. One Mega-pixel = three Mega-bytes. I generally find that the compressed file in bytes is about one quarter of the expanded file size. On a 3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200. Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such a small size? I don't agree. I stick to circa 300 KB file size and manage to submit images sized from 1280x800 to 1920x1200 pixels, depending on content. .... and there is the rub. "depending on content". Different people have different styles of images. That's without introducing any noticeable JPEG compression artefacts. In fact, I've found this process most instructive. More than once has it shown me that I needed to re-edit my original image to reduce noise and think more carefully about sharpening. Applying USM to an image is an easy last step, but is often either unnecessary or should be performed selectively. Some images even benefit from selective softening and this further reduces the JPEG file size. We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises 10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for historical reasons? Does it matter? Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the shriveled image does justice to the original. I hope you meant KB and not MB I feel that many [SI] submissions suffer as a result of being too small. The main reason I like the 300 KB limit (apart from the challenge I mentioned above) is that nobody can produce a good quality large print and claim it to be their own work - the images are not sellable. That's a good point. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:25:30 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:59:40 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: : I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the : home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI]. rec.photo.equipment.35mm : The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and : I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit. : : Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the : compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. On a : 3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These : days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and : desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200. Yeah, but an SI picture doesn't have to be big enough to fill the screen. The appearance of a picture is size dependent. Some pictures look better at a larger size while with others it doesn't much matter. : Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling : a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a : JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital : camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of : the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such : a small size? : : We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer : who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise : disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake : of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises : 10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for : historical reasons? Probably, but note that since we never get dunned for money, we must be sponging off of somebody's Pbase account. The bigger the picture files, the more it costs our benefactor. At some point it could be necessary to prune the extensive archive of past Shoot-Ins, and that would be too bad. An argument for keeping the resolution low (a consequence of the size limit) is that it discourages greedy capitalist freeloaders from stealing our pictures. I don't suppose that most of the pictures have much commercial value, but conceivably some might. : Does it matter? : : Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the : simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is : that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the : size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze : them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the : shriveled image does justice to the original. : : Have a go. OK, I'll start the ball ... Notwithstanding what I said above, I also find the limit annoying. A lot of my pictures don't take well to being dumbed down, and I can really see the difference in quality. Also, it's just plain hard to zero in on 300KB. Photo editors (the ones I use anyway) don't let you specify the target file size and automatically adjust the other parameters to match. So a lot of trial and error is involved. One thing I've noticed is that my pictures vary a lot in the file size needed to make them look good. So here's a practical suggestion: Instead of limiting each picture to 300KB, set a 900KB limit on the total size of the three pictures. If you want one picture to be larger, another has to be smaller. If you could persuade the Maximum Leader to agree to that, I'd applaud your effort. Bob Regards, Eric Stevens |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:25:30 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:59:40 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: : I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the : home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI]. rec.photo.equipment.35mm : The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and : I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit. : : Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the : compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. On a : 3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These : days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and : desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200. Yeah, but an SI picture doesn't have to be big enough to fill the screen. The appearance of a picture is size dependent. Some pictures look better at a larger size while with others it doesn't much matter. : Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling : a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a : JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital : camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of : the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such : a small size? : : We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer : who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise : disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake : of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises : 10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for : historical reasons? Probably, but note that since we never get dunned for money, we must be sponging off of somebody's Pbase account. The bigger the picture files, the more it costs our benefactor. At some point it could be necessary to prune the extensive archive of past Shoot-Ins, and that would be too bad. An argument for keeping the resolution low (a consequence of the size limit) is that it discourages greedy capitalist freeloaders from stealing our pictures. I don't suppose that most of the pictures have much commercial value, but conceivably some might. : Does it matter? : : Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the : simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is : that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the : size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze : them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the : shriveled image does justice to the original. : : Have a go. OK, I'll start the ball ... Notwithstanding what I said above, I also find the limit annoying. A lot of my pictures don't take well to being dumbed down, and I can really see the difference in quality. Also, it's just plain hard to zero in on 300KB. Photo editors (the ones I use anyway) don't let you specify the target file size and automatically adjust the other parameters to match. So a lot of trial and error is involved. One thing I've noticed is that my pictures vary a lot in the file size needed to make them look good. So here's a practical suggestion: Instead of limiting each picture to 300KB, set a 900KB limit on the total size of the three pictures. If you want one picture to be larger, another has to be smaller. If you could persuade the Maximum Leader to agree to that, I'd applaud your effort. Bob Regards, Eric Stevens |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
rOn Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:32:43 -0400, Bowser
wrote: The limit helps because I pay the bill on Pbase and if I go over the limit, I pay more. They've upped the limits, I believe, so I'll check and maybe we can make an adjustment in the file size limitations. That's a detail I wasn't aware of. Undoubtedly this is a factor. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
rOn Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:32:43 -0400, Bowser
wrote: The limit helps because I pay the bill on Pbase and if I go over the limit, I pay more. They've upped the limits, I believe, so I'll check and maybe we can make an adjustment in the file size limitations. That's a detail I wasn't aware of. Undoubtedly this is a factor. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
On 2011-09-10 14:53:05 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric Stevens said: I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI]. The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit. Le Snip Does it matter? Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the shriveled image does justice to the original. Have a go. Regards, Eric Stevens For my SI submissions and other time I post links to my images, I usually size dimensions to 1280 x XXX and keep file size down to around 300KB without seriously noticeable degradation as viewed on on a display. Since these are intended for display viewing and not printing I don't see too much of an issue regarding reducing file size to around 300KB with dimensions of 1280 x XXX. That is not exactly "shriveled" or "postage stamp" sized. Also, consider that most folks post to show the image to others so they can view the image as intended, not to pixel peep. Scrolling around a massive oversized image (which admittedly can be scaled to fit a display most satisfyingly) at 100% can be as irritating as viewing a pixelated "postage stamp". Sizes vary but I find my images generally come out at about 800 x 600 or less when reduced to 300KB. At level I find I find have often lost texture and detail to an extent that the image is degraded in my eyes. But then, I know the original. So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg Cropping is changing the image. and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something more complex in which detail and texture is important. Regards, Eric Stevens OK! Try this for size. This is 8.4 MB 3720 x 2520 http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC_7804A.jpg Resized to 1280 x 867 & 296 KB. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC_7804Aw.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
On 2011-09-10 14:53:05 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric Stevens said: I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI]. The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit. Le Snip Does it matter? Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the shriveled image does justice to the original. Have a go. Regards, Eric Stevens For my SI submissions and other time I post links to my images, I usually size dimensions to 1280 x XXX and keep file size down to around 300KB without seriously noticeable degradation as viewed on on a display. Since these are intended for display viewing and not printing I don't see too much of an issue regarding reducing file size to around 300KB with dimensions of 1280 x XXX. That is not exactly "shriveled" or "postage stamp" sized. Also, consider that most folks post to show the image to others so they can view the image as intended, not to pixel peep. Scrolling around a massive oversized image (which admittedly can be scaled to fit a display most satisfyingly) at 100% can be as irritating as viewing a pixelated "postage stamp". Sizes vary but I find my images generally come out at about 800 x 600 or less when reduced to 300KB. At level I find I find have often lost texture and detail to an extent that the image is degraded in my eyes. But then, I know the original. So here is a 3585 x 2394 at 4MB http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEc2.jpg Cropped to 1920 x 1080 and reduced to 1.3MB http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg Cropping is changing the image. and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg You have picked an example which is ideal for JPG compression: large plain surfaces of almost constant colour. You should try something more complex in which detail and texture is important. Regards, Eric Stevens OK! Try this for size. This is 8.4 MB 3720 x 2520 http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC_7804A.jpg Resized to 1280 x 867 & 296 KB. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC_7804Aw.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Image sizes for [SI]
On 2011-09-10 22:59:22 +0100, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:13:19 +0100, Pete A [...] I stick to circa 300 KB file size and manage to submit images sized from 1280x800 to 1920x1200 pixels, depending on content. ... and there is the rub. "depending on content". Different people have different styles of images. Yes, but... I've just reduced Savageduck's 3595x2394 pixel image from 3.8 MB to 632 KB without reducing the pixel count or introducing any visible artefact that I can see on my 1280x1024 17 inch monitor. Of course I can see artefacts in my heavily compressed version when I pixel peep it, but I would need a 60 inch monitor instead of a 17 inch, viewed at the same distance, to see the artefacts, which is ridiculous. Suppose I have a monitor of the future, ten times bigger than mine: 170 inches diagonal, 12,800x10,240 pixels. I also have an Internet download bandwidth of gigabytes per second. Pray tell me, how are you going to supply me with a high quality image that appears bigger than a postage stamp unless you have a camera with 131 MP and an ISO far too low to be usable hand-held? Most of my photographic past was producing 6x4 and 7x5 inch prints, with the occasional set of 10x8s for wedding albums. A 17 inch monitor is huge in comparison. The problem with digital images is that the originator has no control over the viewing conditions/environment. Digital images are only an intermediate step between photographer and finished work. For instance, I cannot force you to print one of my images 10x8 inches, card mount it as I wish, then put it in a picture frame of my choosing. The choice of mount colour and size plus frame colour and style will either make or break what my image was intended to portray. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Relationship between image, paper, and frame sizes | Don Tuttle[_2_] | Digital Photography | 4 | October 27th 09 05:31 PM |
Help!!! Image sizes. | Petaman | Digital Photography | 12 | January 2nd 07 06:47 PM |