Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

Choderboy wrote in post #19060089
I should have done this the first time.

One of these images was uploaded to POTN at 197kB and was compressed to 168kB.
The other is the image that has not been touched by POTN.
Can anyone see any difference? Obviously revealing now which was compressed would defeat the purpose of a blind test.
It's 1600 pixels wide so click to get a closer look.

Test image was a crop from this:

Hosted photo: posted by Choderboy in
./showthread.php?p=190​60089&i=i230882176
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Ok this will be embarassing if I get the wrong but to me the image on the left looks softer then the one on the right suggesting the one on the left is the POTN upload and the right is the external source

EDIT - This was me viewing on my 4K monitor. When I first cheked on my iphone 6 I couldnt tell as easily

Sorry...

Choderboy wrote in post #19060100
Sorry...

Hosted photo: posted by Choderboy in
./showthread.php?p=190​60100&i=i53031146
forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Well thats interesting. On my monitor the POTN one is clearly sharper/more detailed. So either the host of the left one is degrading the image or POTN is over sharpening? Where did you host the left one?

Notice that the later test image (the puffed up bird) was compressed much less than the first test image.
First was 231 to 149kB. 2nd was 197 to 168 kB.
It's what you would expect from good compression as the puffed up bird is cropped and so the bird and flora it's perched on, which both have detail, make up a larger percentage of the whole image, so it kept more data, therefore maintaining the detail in the in focus area.

I predict an image of a brick wall will be compressed even less, being all detail.

Eddie wrote in post #19060103
Well thats interesting. On my monitor the POTN one is clearly sharper/more detailed. So either the host of the left one is degrading the image or POTN is over sharpening? Where did you host the left one?

They are both on Flickr.
Original was uploaded to POTN here:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1515043.

I then downloaded it showing it had reduced from 197 to 168 kB.
The original and the downloaded, ie compressed by POTN image were then hosted on Flickr, which does not alter the image.

I am confident that Pekka would not have AMASS apply any sharpening if 'no sharpening' option is chosen. The image required no downsizing.

Choderboy wrote in post #19060076
I have not noticed that. What are you uploading?

I upload images at dimensions that will not be downsized.
I also Save at Level 9 in Photoshop. (Photoshop maximum is 12)
See the options box below: I have no USM applied.

Honestly, I've never paid much attention since it's not been an issue. I'll look closer next time. I put the long side at 2048 for Facebook purposes. I use both my hosting links and this sites depending on the photo. I don't host all my shots on my Smugmug or Flickr pages.

Answering the puffy side by side, the left looked sharper to me.

vinmunoz wrote in post #19059929
Thank you. He's more into filming but loves to shoot stills too from time to time.

he just won on one of his entry to short film

That's awesome man. Congrats to him. Proud photographer dad moment for sure.

FYI. You can upload to Flickr but don't select 'public' and only you will see them.
You can confirm this by logging out then go to your Flickr.

You can still embed those images on POTN (or elsewhere)

Choderboy wrote in post #19060105
They are both on Flickr.
Original was uploaded to POTN here:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1515043.

I then downloaded it showing it had reduced from 197 to 168 kB.
The original and the downloaded, ie compressed by POTN image were then hosted on Flickr, which does not alter the image.

I am confident that Pekka would not have AMASS apply any sharpening if 'no sharpening' option is chosen. The image required no downsizing.

Well I have no clue then. I can clearly see a difference in the two images but if they are both on Flickr then I have no idea how

https://www.flickr.com …2387953/with/14​175656384/

Notice if you go to that Flickr Album of mine, you won't see the 2nd image as it's 'private'.

Eddie wrote in post #19060112
Well I have no clue then. I can clearly see a difference in the two images but if they are both on Flickr then I have no idea how

Put a small scratch on 1 frame of film and at 24 fps the human eye / brain work well and you see the scratch.

Show the world a dress with 2 colours and 50% of the world think it's black and blue and the other 50% think it's white and gold.

Bill in Texas wrote in post #19060106
Honestly, I've never paid much attention since it's not been an issue. I'll look closer next time. I put the long side at 2048 for Facebook purposes. I use both my hosting links and this sites depending on the photo. I don't host all my shots on my Smugmug or Flickr pages.

Answering the puffy side by side, the left looked sharper to me.

Are you referring to the image with the 'Original' and 'POTN' labels, or the unlabelled one?

New video online this morning. Probably a bit basic for folks here.

TRhoads wrote in post #19060123
New video online this morning. Probably a bit basic for folks here.

Basic? Did you cover whether this should be OK?
https://imgflip.com/i/​40r73g

Choderboy wrote in post #19060140
Basic? Did you cover whether this should be OK?
https://imgflip.com/i/​40r73g

Ooft!