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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
In article ,
sobriquet wrote: https://opendata.stackexchange.com/q...rch-by-file-si ze a link where the answer is 'i *suspect* this is not supported' ?? yep, that sure is a convincing bit of evidence. not only that, the answer references google's search parameters, which includes image size as the first in the list. now what were you saying about talking out of your ass? I've already tested it out (size:500000, which would yield images of 500 kb or more if it actually worked), and it doesn't work. it works perfectly fine and has for years. If you think otherwise, back up your claims with some actual evidence. you provided the evidence. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
In article ,
sobriquet wrote: Oh and image size in the search parameters only refers to the resolution of the image. But we were talking about the *filesize* of the images, not just the *resolution*. file size is not indicative of quality. in general, higher resolution means larger file size, but that's not always the case. for example, a low resolution uncompressed tiff will look worse than a high resolution jpeg with minimal compression. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?
On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 12:37:26 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article , sobriquet wrote: Oh and image size in the search parameters only refers to the resolution of the image. But we were talking about the *filesize* of the images, not just the *resolution*. file size is not indicative of quality. In many cases it is. If you have an image and a particular resolution, say 1 MP, applying more jpg compression will reduce the filesize and the quality will be severely affected if too much compression is applied. So you can have a good quality image at 500 Kb filesize at 1 MP resolution and use compression to make it 20 Kb in size at 1 MP resolution and the quality will be garbage. Compare these two versions of an image: https://i.imgur.com/ESC1Agi.jpg https://i.imgur.com/QDSgK6j.jpg Both are close to 1 MP in resolution but the first is good quality at a filesize of 418 Kb while the second is crap quality at a filesize of 18 Kb. Of course the fileformat also factors into this and lossless compression will reduce filesize while retaining quality, but images on the web typically use lossy compression in jpg format. Sometimes imgur will show png images, even though the original was a jpg, but it was pasted at imgur and in that case it ends up as a png, because imgur isn't always willing to upload from a given image url and then the image can usually still be uploaded via a copy/paste method. in general, higher resolution means larger file size, but that's not always the case. for example, a low resolution uncompressed tiff will look worse than a high resolution jpeg with minimal compression. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?
On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 12:37:26 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article , sobriquet wrote: https://opendata.stackexchange.com/q...rch-by-file-si ze a link where the answer is 'i *suspect* this is not supported' ?? yep, that sure is a convincing bit of evidence. not only that, the answer references google's search parameters, which includes image size as the first in the list. now what were you saying about talking out of your ass? I've already tested it out (size:500000, which would yield images of 500 kb or more if it actually worked), and it doesn't work. it works perfectly fine and has for years. If you had paid some attention you would have seen that I was already searching for Large (Groot in Dutch) images and yet the results google comes up with were all garbage. So searching for Large images at google is not a reliable method to find quality versions of an image. https://i.imgur.com/ymnB23t.png If you think otherwise, back up your claims with some actual evidence. you provided the evidence. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
BTW, this is a rare problem, because usually images on the web
are multi-MP high res images which are downsized for the web. So, most of the time, the resolution corresponds to the image quality. It's unusual that a 1920x1080 image has been upsized from something smaller. -- Alfred Molon Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
In article ,
sobriquet wrote: I've already tested it out (size:500000, which would yield images of 500 kb or more if it actually worked), and it doesn't work. it works perfectly fine and has for years. If you had paid some attention you would have seen that I was already searching for Large (Groot in Dutch) images and yet the results google comes up with were all garbage. user error |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?
On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
BTW, this is a rare problem, because usually images on the web are multi-MP high res images which are downsized for the web. So, most of the time, the resolution corresponds to the image quality. It's unusual that a 1920x1080 image has been upsized from something smaller. -- Alfred Molon Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site It's not a rare problem, because it happens quite frequently for popular images that you can find both bloated fake versions and genuine quality versions and google doesn't provide a convenient way to distinguish between the two. So you end up having to click images one by one and viewing them at full resolution in the hope of eventually ending up at a good version and in some cases there is little hope because google will find countless pages full of bloated fake versions. It just puzzles me that a company like google isn't able to provide a convenient and reliable method to find good quality images. Other search engines like Tineye show it's really not that difficult to quickly point the user to high quality versions of a given image. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?
On 03/01/2021 00:36, sobriquet wrote:
On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote: BTW, this is a rare problem, because usually images on the web are multi-MP high res images which are downsized for the web. So, most of the time, the resolution corresponds to the image quality. It's unusual that a 1920x1080 image has been upsized from something smaller. -- Alfred Molon Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site It's not a rare problem, because it happens quite frequently for popular images that you can find both bloated fake versions and genuine quality versions and google doesn't provide a convenient way to distinguish between the two. So you end up having to click images one by one and viewing them at full resolution in the hope of eventually ending up at a good version and in some cases there is little hope because google will find countless pages full of bloated fake versions. It just puzzles me that a company like google isn't able to provide a convenient and reliable method to find good quality images. Other search engines like Tineye show it's really not that difficult to quickly point the user to high quality versions of a given image. Google is a general purpose search engine with algorithmic biases and SEO filtering junk in the way. Tineye is a reverse image search engine. That is all it does. They are not the same thing. Google is not an image curator. Any success by Tineye is by accident. You didn't even know about Tineye until I pointed them out to you without evena thankfuou in return and I have also previously commented on Googles bias and filters. Sigh. Are you still going on about this? Most people would have just said thankyou and moved on or simply just noted the difference for future reference. There's eff all point going on in this ng about it. Take it up with Google management or the regulators. -- Melanie van Buren |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?
In article c95dce15-8ee4-47e0-9f70-
, says... It just puzzles me that a company like google isn't able to provide a convenient and reliable method to find good quality images. Probably it's because if somebody needs a high res version of an image, they can contact the photographer. -- Alfred Molon Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?
On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 7:04:08 AM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
On 03/01/2021 00:36, sobriquet wrote: On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote: BTW, this is a rare problem, because usually images on the web are multi-MP high res images which are downsized for the web. So, most of the time, the resolution corresponds to the image quality. It's unusual that a 1920x1080 image has been upsized from something smaller. -- Alfred Molon Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at https://groups.io/g/myolympus https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site It's not a rare problem, because it happens quite frequently for popular images that you can find both bloated fake versions and genuine quality versions and google doesn't provide a convenient way to distinguish between the two. So you end up having to click images one by one and viewing them at full resolution in the hope of eventually ending up at a good version and in some cases there is little hope because google will find countless pages full of bloated fake versions. It just puzzles me that a company like google isn't able to provide a convenient and reliable method to find good quality images. Other search engines like Tineye show it's really not that difficult to quickly point the user to high quality versions of a given image. Google is a general purpose search engine with algorithmic biases and SEO filtering junk in the way. Tineye is a reverse image search engine. That is all it does. They are not the same thing. Google is not an image curator. Any success by Tineye is by accident. You didn't even know about Tineye until I pointed them out to you without evena thankfuou in return and I have also previously commented on Googles bias and filters. I knew about Tineye. I just hadn't tried to see if Tineye would be able to find a better quality version of the image. There are also many other search engines like bing and yandex with image search options. I just asked here because that's an easy way to assess if people have had better a better search experience in various alternative image search engines. Sigh. Are you still going on about this? Most people would have just said thankyou and moved on or simply just noted the difference for future reference. There's eff all point going on in this ng about it. Take it up with Google management or the regulators. It's just ridiculous that google brings you tons of garbage in response to a query. That's like the government building roads for people to drive on and they make the roads out of quicksand so all the cars get stuck. Why waste tax money on building roads for people to get stuck with their cars in? It just makes no sense. Similarly it makes no sense to create an image search engine to help people find tons of garbage when they are obviously not interested in searching for garbage search results. I'm having this discussion here because this is a place I'd expect to find people who might use google and other search engines to find images online. Many people who like to create images also like to share their images and enjoy the images created by others, so an image search engine is an obvious way to access images shared online. -- Melanie van Buren |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poor quality images on projector despite high quality scan | Nikolaj Winther | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | March 4th 05 10:06 AM |
Poor quality images on projector despite high quality scan | Nikolaj Winther | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 17th 05 01:08 PM |
Poor quality images on projector despite high quality scan | Nikolaj Winther | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 17th 05 01:08 PM |
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams | Richard Lee | Digital Photography | 21 | August 23rd 04 07:04 PM |
THE Difference Between Good Quality and Poor Quality Pictures! | N.E.1. | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 3 | September 23rd 03 03:14 AM |