Image sizes for [SI]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:53:05 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

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.

Not really. Complex detail and texture (especially "natural" textures)
are the images that typically work best with JPEG compression. It's hard
edges and in smooth gradations of tone that JPEG blocking and ringing
shows up most clearly.

Don't forget that photos for the SI aren't intended for printing, but for
comparison of style and "art" on screen.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:53:05 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

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.

Not really. Complex detail and texture (especially "natural" textures)
are the images that typically work best with JPEG compression. It's hard
edges and in smooth gradations of tone that JPEG blocking and ringing
shows up most clearly.

Don't forget that photos for the SI aren't intended for printing, but for
comparison of style and "art" on screen.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

On 9/10/2011 5:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric 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.


One of my images will satisfy that requirement.


--
Peter

On 9/10/2011 5:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-09-10 02:59:40 -0700, Eric 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.


One of my images will satisfy that requirement.


--
Peter

Eric Stevens writes:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Well, how about this, then:
http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027.
800x535, 167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.

Eric Stevens writes:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Well, how about this, then:
http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027.
800x535, 167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.

On 2011-09-10 18:43:51 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Eric Stevens writes:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Well, how about this, then:
http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027.
800x535,

167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.

Hiawatha must have frozen his moccasins getting that shot.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-09-10 18:43:51 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Eric Stevens writes:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Well, how about this, then:
http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027.
800x535,

167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.

Hiawatha must have frozen his moccasins getting that shot.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Eric writes:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Well, how about this, then:
http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027.
800x535, 167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.

David, that just proves it's impossible to make a beautiful and detailed
submission as a compressed 800 pixel image ... joking

:-)

I have been sending in images at about 1600 wide, which I figure gives
maybe enough room to almost fit on a 1920 monitor with the extra space
the browser uses. That's probably a bit too big. People can always
change the view to "large" instead of "original" to get 800 wide though.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Eric writes:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:56:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Well, how about this, then:
http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027.
800x535, 167k, with EXIF and IPTC data and profile.

David, that just proves it's impossible to make a beautiful and detailed
submission as a compressed 800 pixel image ... joking

:-)

I have been sending in images at about 1600 wide, which I figure gives
maybe enough room to almost fit on a 1920 monitor with the extra space
the browser uses. That's probably a bit too big. People can always
change the view to "large" instead of "original" to get 800 wide though.