Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff AMASS Forum Software Talk
Thread started 28 Jun 2016 (Tuesday) 14:22
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Max image size (upcoming AMASS 2.0 upload)

 
xpfloyd
Cream of the Crop
xpfloyd's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
Glasgow, Scotland
Jun 28, 2016 14:22 |  #1

Pekka,

Do you have any plans in the future of increasing the maximum image size beyond 1280 pixels?

Flickr doesn't have a 1280 bbcode option so I have to post 1024 version. My web browser then stretches that to 200% when viewing on a Retina display causing pixelation. Would it be possible to increase the limit to 1600 or better? (Since Flickr has a 1600 option)


Eddie | flickr (external link)| gear
x100F | α7R II
Voigtlander 4.5/15 | Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21 | Samyang 1.4/24 | Contax Zeiss 4.5-5.6/100-300
Sony 2/28 | Sony/Zeiss 1.8/55 | Zeiss Batis 1.8/85 | Sony 2.8/90

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Pekka
El General Moderator
Pekka's Avatar
17,238 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Joined Mar 2001
Hellsinki, Finland
Jun 28, 2016 17:53 |  #2

xpfloyd wrote in post #18052510 (external link)
Pekka,

Do you have any plans in the future of increasing the maximum image size beyond 1280 pixels?

Flickr doesn't have a 1280 bbcode option so I have to post 1024 version. My web browser then stretches that to 200% when viewing on a Retina display causing pixelation. Would it be possible to increase the limit to 1600 or better? (Since Flickr has a 1600 option)

I'll think about that.

There is always the issue of pages getting slower to load on mobile devices. Also, when threads are viewed on full HD screens the images would get always downsized to fit, now they fit in 100%.

What do others think, 1280 or 1600?


The Forum Boss, El General Moderator
AMASS 1.4 Changelog (installed here now)

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,203 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Jun 28, 2016 18:01 |  #3

I'm fine with how things are now. Big enough to clearly see the image yet small enough to be quick.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
rrblint
Listen! .... do you smell something?
rrblint's Avatar
19,258 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Joined May 2012
U.S.A.
Jun 29, 2016 00:38 |  #4

gjl711 wrote in post #18052688 (external link)
I'm fine with how things are now. Big enough to clearly see the image yet small enough to be quick.

^^^^+1 Seem good as is.


Mark

LOG IN TO REPLY
xpfloyd
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
xpfloyd's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
Glasgow, Scotland
Jun 29, 2016 00:44 |  #5

gjl711 wrote in post #18052688 (external link)
I'm fine with how things are now. Big enough to clearly see the image yet small enough to be quick.

It's all dependant on the viewing resolution of your screen . You may not be fine if you had a higher resolution


Eddie | flickr (external link)| gear
x100F | α7R II
Voigtlander 4.5/15 | Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21 | Samyang 1.4/24 | Contax Zeiss 4.5-5.6/100-300
Sony 2/28 | Sony/Zeiss 1.8/55 | Zeiss Batis 1.8/85 | Sony 2.8/90

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,203 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Jun 29, 2016 07:11 |  #6

xpfloyd wrote in post #18052947 (external link)
It's all dependant on the viewing resolution of your screen . You may not be fine if you had a higher resolution

1900x1200 but I rarely have my browser in full screen and use my phone from time to time as well.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
AZGeorge's Avatar
Joined Dec 2010
Southen Arizona
Jul 03, 2016 11:53 |  #7

gjl711 wrote in post #18052688 (external link)
I'm fine with how things are now. Big enough to clearly see the image yet small enough to be quick.

I'd like to see larger images but agree the size/speed/flexibility balance seems good.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by Tom Reichner.
Jul 04, 2016 00:36 |  #8

xpfloyd wrote in post #18052947 (external link)
It's all dependant on the viewing resolution of your screen . You may not be fine if you had a higher resolution

I have a 5K screen, but Apple somehow has things set up so that 1200 pixel image appears at a pretty decent size, anyway. And even if it didn't, I could always just click on VIEW → ZOOM IN, and that would give me a bigger, better display of the image.
Can't everybody with a high resolution screen just zoom in if they want an image to appear bigger? Takes but a second, literally, so it isn't inconvenient or bothersome in the least.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
xpfloyd
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
xpfloyd's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
Glasgow, Scotland
Jul 04, 2016 00:40 |  #9

It's a retina specific issue I'm having. I'll just live with it


Eddie | flickr (external link)| gear
x100F | α7R II
Voigtlander 4.5/15 | Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21 | Samyang 1.4/24 | Contax Zeiss 4.5-5.6/100-300
Sony 2/28 | Sony/Zeiss 1.8/55 | Zeiss Batis 1.8/85 | Sony 2.8/90

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by Tom Reichner. 2 edits done in total.
Jul 04, 2016 00:48 |  #10

xpfloyd wrote in post #18057332 (external link)
It's a retina specific issue I'm having. I'll just live with it

But can't you just click VIEW, then from the dropdown menu, ZOOM IN?
Why wouldn't that take care of the retina-specific issue?
It seems like a better option than "just living with it".

.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
xpfloyd
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
xpfloyd's Avatar
Joined Feb 2011
Glasgow, Scotland
Jul 04, 2016 03:31 |  #11

"I'll just live with it" was me trying to end the discussion without having to go into the technicalities of it as I realised from the first few responses things are not going to change.

But since you are asking - on a retina screen each pixel is actually displayed using 4 pixels (2 wide and 2 high). So if the retina screen has a resolution of 2880x1800 (which is what my MacBook has) this will view like a 1440x900 screen. Therefore when viewing via a web browser OS X recognises that you are on a Retina display and zooms everything to 200% automatically so that everything isn't tiny.

Here in lies the problem. If I post an image at the site max 1280 it's stretched to 2560 on retina screens. To the viewer the image looks like it's 1280 but it becomes pixelated due to the 200% zoom. On 4K screens it's not an issue as they don't use 4 pixel per pixel like a retina. If we were allowed to post larger images they would require less scaling on retina screens and therefore would not look pixelated.

I realised after starting this thread that I am in the minority though so I am now just living with the phenomenon


Eddie | flickr (external link)| gear
x100F | α7R II
Voigtlander 4.5/15 | Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21 | Samyang 1.4/24 | Contax Zeiss 4.5-5.6/100-300
Sony 2/28 | Sony/Zeiss 1.8/55 | Zeiss Batis 1.8/85 | Sony 2.8/90

LOG IN TO REPLY
digital_AM
Cream of the Crop
digital_AM's Avatar
5,545 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Dec 2010
Texas
Sep 06, 2017 13:59 |  #12

Yes, please change the upload size to 1600px! Thank you.


Sony α7R II / ILCE-7RM2, α6000 / ILCE-6000 | Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm F1.8 ZA | Carl Zeiss Loxia 21mm F2.8, Loxia 85mm F2.4, Batis 18mm F2.8 | Voigtlander Heliar Ultra Wide-Angle 12mm f/5.6 | Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 macro |

LOG IN TO REPLY
idsurfer
Cream of the Crop
idsurfer's Avatar
Joined Dec 2010
Boise, Idaho
Sep 07, 2017 07:43 |  #13

Totally agree....Would love to see the upload size increased to 1600px.....Thx!


Cory
Sony ⍺6500 | Samyang 2/12 | Sony/Zeiss E 1.8/24 | Sony E 1.8/50
flickr (external link)

Feedback

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,221 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. 3 edits done in total.
Sep 07, 2017 07:47 |  #14

If I click the enlarge, I wouldn't mind waiting a bit if the download happens at that point, instead of when the posts are loading up? Not sure if that can help the bandwidth issue, but still give us larger image support? I don't want pages to load slower because we went to larger images though.

Apple doing a 200% digital resizing of images that don't meet some sort of resolution minimum is one of the major causes of why we have so many debates about image quality, IMO. People, when having IQ discussions and comparing results, don't often realize how much their viewing hardware plays a part vs the actual image file itself, or even what the site that serves up the image might be doing to the file under the covers to save space. I think the monitor and the site serving up files (not POTN, but others) are the 2 largest culprits to all the IQ arguments that we get into.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
filmuser
Member
Joined Jul 2016
Sep 07, 2017 08:25 as a reply to TeamSpeed's post |  #15

Exactly, cannot give a real critique on an uploaded photo. Too many parts to the equation.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,051 views & 31 likes for this thread
Max image size (upcoming AMASS 2.0 upload)
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff AMASS Forum Software Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00197 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.2s
Latest registered member is MarthaBennett
916 guests, 435 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016