Jump to content

"Upload An Image" changes ...


Rich in NEPA

Recommended Posts

I really do appreciate the fact that I can now upload images larger than 100KB (actually it was more like only 98KB), but why in the world do they have to be upsized dimensionally??? I'd prefer my images be displayed at the same pixel dimensions that I originally made them. For example, using the new system I uploaded a photo at 650x490 (148KB). It then dispays at 796x600 (120KB) with much degraded quality having lost considerable sharpness. Is there any reasonable way to get around this problem?

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

Link to comment

 

Jeremy, something is still screwed up with the imaging software. I just uploaded three test images to one of my recent cache logs as follows:

 

Blooming Grove Hiking Trail Cache

 

The Test3 image is in landscape orientation and is the same dimensions (650x490) as "Enjoying a quiet moment ..." except that it was redone with less compression (for higher quality) resulting in a larger filesize (~150KB). As you can see, when you select Click Image To View Original the image is upsized to 796x600. It should remain at 650x490 like the next test will demonstrate. It also degrades the quality of the image even more so than when I had to deal with the old 100KB limit.

 

The Test4 image is in portrait orientation and is the same dimensions (490x650) as "Trailside Scene ..." except that is was redone with less compression resulting in a larger filesize (~149KB). This time when you select Click Image To View Original, the image dimensions stay same as the original ... as it should be. I'd be VERY happy if the landscape orientation worked like this!

 

But then there's one other quirk. The thumbnail view of Test4 in the "View A Cache Log" page is truncated at the bottom and is shown in landscape mode.

 

The Test5 image is just a repeat of what I had done for Test3. Just wanted to make sure I was seeing what I was seeing.

 

I hope I'm explaining this clearly. I'm willing to work along with you in order to get this sorted out as needed.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

Link to comment

Why base the decision to resize or not resize on the width of the image? I would think you would be more concerned about the size of the file. Why should you care if my image is 320 pixels wide or 2048 pixels wide as long as it doesn't use too much disk space or take too long for modem users to download?

Link to comment

 

Time to bump up this thread and ask for a status report.

 

It doesn't appear that much was done to alleviate the problem with stretching photos for cache logs. As it stands now, if an image is less than 600 pixels wide, it is not resized. That's fine.

 

If it is more than 800 pixels wide it is reduced to 800 pixels. Not an issue for me since I seldom if ever upload images wider than 650 pixels. But it could be a critical issue for someone else.

 

However, if the image is between 600 and 800 pixels wide it is stretched to 800 pixels. This is what my gripe is about. My question remains the same as it was at the start of this thread: why do images need to be resized at all?

 

If someone (Jeremy?) would explain the rationale for doing all this image manipulation on the website it might make trying to deal with the related problems a lot less frustrating. If the reasoning has something to do with bandwidth usage and/or server storage, I'm having a hard time understanding how resampling and resizing images is an effective solution. The simplest approach is generally the best solution. Simply raising the filesize upload limit to 150KB would appear to be a very simple solution. Not everyone who uploads images would exploit this new limit right off. As a matter of fact, the only time I myself need larger image filesizes is when images contain a lot of detail and therefore require higher levels of JPEG compression in order to keep the filesize (and download times) tolerable. But this tends to wreak havoc, for example, to the faces of people included in the image, turning them blotchy and unrecognizable. Admittedly the JPEG standard sucks, the trade-offs are frustrating as heck! But a small increase in the upload limit would go such a long way to allowing me to preserve as much image quality as possible.

 

Like Cornix, I have found a temporary work-around to prevent unwanted resizing, but it's more of a kludge than a reasonable solution. I resize my images to 650x490 and then increase the canvas size to 800x600 by adding a thick white border (similar to the way images are displayed on the benchmarking site). This prevents the GC.com website from either stretching or reducing the original proportions of my photo, but it still makes viewing awkward or difficult for people with smaller, lower-resolution computer displays. That's one reason I've tried to stick with the recommended web dimensions (standard VGA proportions) for all images.

 

I've been Geocaching and using this site for well over two and a half years. Photography happens to play a major part in my caching and benchmarking experiences. I realize that this is not the case for most cachers. With all the changes going on with the website recently, my caching experiences have not been enhanced. Quite the contrary—I'm finding myself less and less enthused about the activity and with the direction that things are going. Sorry, but that's the reality of it for me. I've always been grateful for having this website and I became a Charter Member the very same day that the option was made available so please don't take these comments the wrong way.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

 

[Corrected typos.]

 

[This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 01, 2003 at 06:12 AM.]

Link to comment

They're enlarging photos?! That's insane! Sorry Jeremy, but that's a really bad idea! And scaling down anything that's over x pixels wide, regardless of file size? I guess I won't be posting any more panoramic shots.

 

IMO, if a file's under the 100k limit, you shouldn't alter it at all. If it's over the limit, scale it down until it's under the limit, keeping the proportions the same.

 

--

Pehmva!

 

Random quote:

sigimage.php

Link to comment

Hmmmm...

 

Let's see if Markwell can markwell.

 

Another Problem with Photo Uploads - Date posted in the Benchmarking forums: May 20, 2002.

 

Here's another mention and the demostration of the two files in Yo! How come... from last month.

 

Jamie knows my views, as do others, but I'll state it unequivically again.

 

If the image is less than 100K don't mess with it. If you want to change it so that if it's less than 600 pix don't mess with it either, that's fine.

 

But PLEASE don't have the system add a white matte or stretch a picture to fill up to the standard size.

 

========================

 

Slightly off topic.

 

Jeremy, you indicated that this would be rolled out to the cache pictures as well. Really? I size pictures on the cache uploads many times to fit precisely as I want them to in the description using html. Take a look at the cache pages of my caches and the pics included on the page.

 

Also, what about the other non-image files uploaded specifically for the cache page?

 

GD24-BYYC: Shall We Play A Game? has an audio wav file uploaded.

 

Peek-a-Boo has not only a wav file, but a Word document, a PDF and a winzip file with a jpg internal (but password protected), and lastly an HTML document that provides further descriptions in how this cache is done.

 

Herrick Lake Audio Exchange has a loc file and GPX file added as a convenience for the several waypoints.

 

Will these be going away? If you're going to mandate the resizing on cache pictures, are you going to provide another method to upload non-jpg/gif files for use in cache pages?

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

 

[This message was edited by Markwell on October 01, 2003 at 11:12 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

I just uploaded the Star Trek picture to _this log_ I don't see it resizing it up. Is this now fixed?


Markwell, no it's not fixed. icon_frown.gif If you read my last post you'll see that if the image that you uploaded is less than 600 pixels wide it will not be stretched or reduced. That's why your Star Trek photo was not dimensionally modified. Since I don't know what the original filesize was, I can't determine if it was subjected to further JPEG compression and degradation. I can see that the photos I've just uploaded to my last cache log have indeed been recompressed at a higher level and with a noticeable reduction in image quality.

 

JPEG artifacts are cumulative. It's a "lossy" process, meaning that image details are thrown away every time a JPEG image saved. This is made worse when a JPEG image is "unpacked" and then subsequently saved again with even the minimal amount of JPEG compression. More and more image information is thrown away. Not an acceptable solution. icon_confused.gif

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

Jamie knows my views, as do others, but I'll state it unequivically again.

 

If the image is less than 100K don't mess with it. If you want to change it so that if it's less than 600 pix don't mess with it either, that's fine.

 

But PLEASE don't have the system add a white matte or stretch a picture to fill up to the standard size.


Yes, I can confirm that I know Markwell's views. icon_confused.gif

 

In one of the threads referenced by Markwell, Jeremy had this to say:

quote:
You're in the minority. The majority have no idea how to shrink or crop images.
I think he's on to something. How often do we see posts asking why an image won't upload? It's one of those FAQs. Most people take pics, transfer them to their computer and want to share them. They don't want to mess with resizing.

 

I think it is important to allow images greater than 100K, but it's also important not to penalize those with the knowledge and ambition to manipulate the photos themselves.

 

Maybe a "Do not resize my image" checkbox on the bottom of the page, with an accompanying size limit.

 

So far this feature has not affected me--however with my fairly new digital camera, I have been looking forward to conveniently posting photos when I finally get around to caching again. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Jamie

Link to comment

 

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

So this should be fixed now. If you upload an image <= 600 pixels wide, it will be left alone.


 

[Edit: please refer to my subsequent post below.]

 

Yes, Elias. That does indeed take care of that problem.

 

Would you care to try to explain the need for all of this rigamarole involving image manipulation for our uploads? It all seems so unnecessary to me. Thanks much.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

 

[This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 01, 2003 at 04:58 PM.]

Link to comment

Rich, I think JamieZ's post hit the nail on the head. Scroll through the "Getting Started" forum and read all the questions about not knowing how to resize an image. Not everyone was born with Photoshop preinstalled. icon_smile.gif

 

Elias, thanks for the bug detective work! Those of us who crop and size our photos with care are grateful for the fix.

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Next time, instead of getting married, I think I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

If you upload an image <= 600 pixels wide, it will be left alone.

 

smile.gif Elias


What about one that's over 800 px wide?

 

This pic is a 360 degree view from a local cache site. The uploaded pic is 1335x125, 61k. If it were scaled down to 800 pixels wide, it'd only be 75 pixels high and really wouldn't even be worth viewing.

 

If I uploaded this pic with the new system, would it be resized too 800 pixels, even though it's well under the 100k file size limit?

 

--

Pehmva!

 

Random quote:

sigimage.php

Link to comment

 

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

If you upload an image <= 600 pixels wide, it will be left alone.


Ooops!!! Disregard what I wrote above. The problem is NOT fixed, it's just been changed to something else. Now, if the image is greater than 600 pixels wide it's being scaled down to 600 pixels. This is not good, either. We're still not getting anywhere. I just tried uploading a typical 650x490 image to my last cache log and it gets changed to 600x452.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

 

[Corrected typos.]

 

[This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 01, 2003 at 05:02 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

Would you care to try to explain the need for all of this rigamarole involving image manipulation for our uploads? It all seems so unnecessary to me. Thanks much.


We want to be able to show images in a gallery or present them in a consistent way so we picked a size to use when scaling down images. That size just happened to be 600 pixels wide.

 

We want to make it easy for users to upload photos and not have to be experts in image manipulation. So if a geocacher has a 6 megapixel digital camera and wants to upload a 2048x1732 image that's 4 MB in size, that's great. But that size image isn't useful for anybody, so we reduce it to 600 pixels wide. For those of you who do know how to manipulate your images and don't want us to touch them, then just size them to 600 pixels wide or less.

 

smile.gif Elias

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cruzin!:

If I uploaded this pic with the new system, would it be resized too 800 pixels, even though it's well under the 100k file size limit?


Yes, unfortunately that's true. We don't care about file size so much as we care about image size. So that image would be reduced to 600x56.

 

smile.gif Elias

Link to comment

We have been consider offering the ability to store "pure" versions of images in the future for premium members. This is unfortunately an interim solution but it suits our storage restrictions and works as a good "catch all" answer to image uploads.

 

smile.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

Yes, unfortunately that's true. We don't care about file size so much as we care about image size. So that image would be reduced to 600x56.


...and would be rendered useless and unviewable.

 

I guess I'll have to put them on my own server and just link to them in my logs. Are <img or [img tags allowed in logs, or will I have to actually put in the whole URL that people will have to copy/paste?

 

FWIW, I think that relying on pics being a specific size or scale is not a good idea. Considering the nature of the activity (i.e. it's the location of the cache, not the cache itself), you're going to see a lot of pics that just don't fit the 640x480 or 800x600 scheme.

 

I see where you're coming from as far as laying out a gallery being made easier, but why not leave the pics alone and generate thumbnails of a consistant size? You can fit a lot more thumbnails on a gallery page, and people would be able to pick and choose which pics they'd want to spend their bandwidth downloading. Just a thought.

 

--

Pehmva!

 

Random quote:

sigimage.php

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cruzin!:

I see where you're coming from as far as laying out a gallery being made easier, but why not leave the pics alone and generate thumbnails of a consistant size? You can fit a lot more thumbnails on a gallery page, and people would be able to pick and choose which pics they'd want to spend their bandwidth downloading.


This sounds good to me. icon_smile.gif

With the new system you already have thumbnails in two sizes: 100x75 and 300x225 (for 4:3 images).

 

Cornix

Link to comment

I'm guessing that the "Upload Image" changes are not up for a democratic vote, but if they are I vote, NO. The old way seemed to be working just fine. The new way may be "slightly" easier for newbies to upload, but the quality of the images has decreased in my opinion.

 

Personally, I prefer to look at larger (higher resolution) photos. I've been able to to upload 800x600 & 1024x768 images and still keep the file sizes under 100k without sacrificing image quality. The 600 pixel wide images really don't do the photos justice.

 

Again, I'm not sure if plain, ole users have a say in this decision or not. Just remember the old saying, "If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it."

 

My 2 cents!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...