Image sizes for [SI]

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

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".


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

and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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".


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

and finally reduced to 1280 x 720 @ 246KB for Usenet.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWcw.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

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.
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.

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.

: 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

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.

: 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

On 9/10/2011 5:59 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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

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.

On 9/10/2011 5:59 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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

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.

Eric Stevens writes:

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.

I routinely generate 900x577 or so images around 100KB; I wonder if you
are using an excessive JPEG quality setting? Photoshop's 6 level seems
very good to me (and 7 has a weird technical fault making it often
bigger than 8).

Eric Stevens writes:

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.

I routinely generate 900x577 or so images around 100KB; I wonder if you
are using an excessive JPEG quality setting? Photoshop's 6 level seems
very good to me (and 7 has a weird technical fault making it often
bigger than 8).