Better .jpg compression or default to "original"

[akmc_in_au]

I don't see any reason to go above 1000.

For what it's worth, when a picture really catches my eye, I hope that it will give me a horizontal scrollbar when I click the "original" link.

Maybe because the majority of monitors now support at least 1024 x 768.

Not everybody enjoys scrolling everytime they come to a larger image.

Not that I know anything about monitors or image size, but if the Pbase gods see no reason to go above the 1000 pixel mark, who am I to think differently.

No Shawn, apparently the pBase gods think that everything's hunky dory the way it is, though it's a little hard to tell one way or t'other. It's only the users who shove their hands in their pockets who might think differently. Or so it would seem from the number of posts along the lines of "How can I make sure that visitors see my images without them being resized down to 800 pixels by the pBase finger-painting algorithm?"

[nooutlet]

Well when it comes to "ridiculous" that statement's in the running.

Most images on pBase will fit into 1000 pixels. If the default limit, limit I repeat, was 1200, how much scrolling would be involved for the majority of images?

My statement ended with "image page that had that size", so it was entirely true. Your claim is that there aren't enough images that would have that size for it to matter. What you may not be considering is that many galleries have nothing but original images larger than 1200. Look at Slug's galleries or this gallery or this gallery or this gallery or this gallery. These are all from the recent galleries at the time of this post(except the korea one which I found yesterday when I started to reply). See, most of the time, ALL of the images in a particular gallery are from the same camera and if that camera puts out a larger image and the artist doesn't resize before uploading, then all of those images are going to be big enough to make 70% of the visitors scroll or move down to Medium as their default viewing size.

It's not as if images which are under 1200 would be resized UP to that as a default.

I don't know where you got that I thought they would be. My problem is that the majority of visitors won't be able to browse PLENTY of galleries(whether it's the majority of galleries or not isn't the point).

The objective here is to avoid, and avoid for as long as possible, the unwanted, undesired, irritating, photo distorting, arbitrary restriction that pBase imposed as the default size god knows how many years ago when people were still using steam powered monitors.

You're right. I'm the one that's being ridiculous. Let's just get rid of all resizings and the only option will be "original". After all, nearly NONE of the images people upload are bigger than the screen resolution of all our visitors.

I repeat; the intention of making the default limit 1200... not making images resized UP to 1200, mark you, but making the default LIMIT 1200, is that not only will it reduce the number of photos that are seen in a way that the photographer doesn't want, but will CONTINUE to do so for at least 2 or 3 years.

You can talk to me like I'm an idiot, but it won't make me an idiot. I understood exactly what you were saying before and making decisions which factor in the future is usually a great idea, except when it doesn't take into account the problems it will create in the present.

And yes, I know that the 800*600 numbers aren't necessarily "linear". My own stats show that the 800*600 brigade isn't merely under 10%, it's under 5.

Why is linear in quotes? What stats are you using?

[akmc_in_au]

Well when it comes to "ridiculous" that statement's in the running.

Most images on pBase will fit into 1000 pixels. If the default limit, limit I repeat, was 1200, how much scrolling would be involved for the majority of images?

My statement ended with "image page that had that size", so it was entirely true. Your claim is that there aren't enough images that would have that size for it to matter. What you may not be considering is that many galleries have nothing but original images larger than 1200. Look at Slug's galleries or [url="http://www.pbase.com/jcribou/seoulsouth_korea"]this gallery[/url] or [url="http://www.pbase.com/capsjane/2008janfeb"]this gallery[/url] or [url="http://www.pbase.com/jlmisc/feb08"]this gallery[/url] or [url="http://www.pbase.com/boscodamus/san_juan_details"]this gallery[/url]. These are all from the recent galleries at the time of this post(except the korea one which I found yesterday when I started to reply). See, most of the time, ALL of the images in a particular gallery are from the same camera and if that camera puts out a larger image and the artist doesn't resize before uploading, then all of those images are going to be big enough to make 70% of the visitors scroll

Again with the mythical "70%". You suggested that:

Furthermore, w3schools is a place where people go to learn about programming mostly and those statistics are gathered from their viewers. So their userbase might be more inclined to have higher resolutions than ours

Sorry, WHO is likely to have a higher resolution? Programmers, or people who are into photography? (And whether that's pBase members or visitors, those are likely to be the people who are browsing galleries.) But a PROGRAMMING user base might have higher resolutions? I have my doubts somehow, but I'll come back to that subject at the end.

or move down to Medium as their default viewing size.

Well, let's suppose that Medium gets upsized as well, since a 400 pixel wide image may as well be a thumbnail these days. (And what POSSIBLE use does the 160 pixel "Small" size serve these days, he asks rhetorically.) What, exactly, is wrong with that? The current situation is that casual viewers land on a distorted image if it's over 800 pixels in size. You may call it "resized", many others would call it distorted. See also:

http://forum.pbase.com/viewtopic.php?t=34185

To see the undistorted image, they have to select an option.

Up the default size, and situation gets reversed. By default a casual visitor will see the undistorted image more often. If they'd rather see a distorted image which at least fits on their screen, they can still do that. (And that presupposes that the image didn't fit onto their screen in the fist place, which wouldn't automatically be a given.)

Which option sounds more appealing?

Based on the thread above, 2/3rds of the voters prefer to be able to prevent the distorted views. But hey, let's have another poll, this time on the exact subject at hand.

It's not as if images which are under 1200 would be resized UP to that as a default.

I don't know where you got that I thought they would be.

Sigh, sometimes it's not all about you, y'know? The above was merely emphasising my point is that if an image is, say, 1000*667, it will be supremely irrelevant to the viewer that the limit is 1200.

My problem is that the majority of visitors won't be able to browse PLENTY of galleries(whether it's the majority of galleries or not isn't the point).

Won't be ABLE to? What, this change would cause viewers to develop some kind of neurological deficiency which would prevent them from selecting one of the resizing options so that they could see the whole image on screen at the one time, albeit in a fashion that the photographer didn't intend? (Unless the gallery owner was using the Black_Standard template and the viewer was using IE6, in which case the resize controls don't display about half the time, but that's an exception to the rule.)

The objective here is to avoid, and avoid for as long as possible, the unwanted, undesired, irritating, photo distorting, arbitrary restriction that pBase imposed as the default size god knows how many years ago when people were still using steam powered monitors.

You're right. I'm the one that's being ridiculous.

Not yet, but…

Let's just get rid of all resizings and the only option will be "original".

Theeere you go.

After all, nearly NONE of the images people upload are bigger than the screen resolution of all our visitors.

Look, the fact of the matter is that at present casual visitors aren't getting to see what the photographer intended in FAR too many cases. You want to estimate how many casual viewers don't even LOOK at the resize options and just bounce because they see a rather unimpressive image, which is VERY impressive when seen as the photographer intended?

I'm amazed at your ability to read things as a personal slight. Nothing in my above quote was about you being ridiculous. EVERY PART OF IT was about the fact that a LOT (and if you don't believe that, check the forum history, check the post which started this thread) of photographers are sick of casual viewers going, by default, to an image which has been distorted. If it was slighting anything it was slighting the resizing algorithm, but as I said previously I don't believe that there is ANY way that you could come up with a decent "one size fits all" algorithm anyway.

I repeat; the intention of making the default limit 1200... not making images resized UP to 1200, mark you, but making the default LIMIT 1200, is that not only will it reduce the number of photos that are seen in a way that the photographer doesn't want, but will CONTINUE to do so for at least 2 or 3 years.

You can talk to me like I'm an idiot,

In this thread, YOU talking to ME in that fashion is closer to the mark. It's possible to disagree with someone without off-handed dismissals like "ridiculous". See also "Tact: The art of making a point without making an enemy". You can take your browbeating elsewhere, because although I've tried to play nice with you (since, unlike your colleagues you at least ARE talking to the user base), I ain't wearing it and will happily serve it back. (Well, "happily" might be overstating, but that's neither here nor there.)

but it won't make me an idiot.

For clarity, I haven't previously and don't now think you're an idiot.

I think you're wrong on this particular issue , but I don't think you're an idiot.

I understood exactly what you were saying before and making decisions which factor in the future is usually a great idea, except when it doesn't take into account the problems it will create in the present.

And yes, I know that the 800*600 numbers aren't necessarily "linear". My own stats show that the 800*600 brigade isn't merely under 10%, it's under 5.

Why is linear in quotes?

Because it WAS a quote; specifically, from one of your earlier posts.

What stats are you using?

My own stats. Stats which relate to MY galleries. Specifically, from Google Analytics.

I find it hard to believe that my galleries are attracting views only from some kind of technological elite. And yet, I've had only two visitors who are still on 640*480, and the number on 800*600? 4.7%.

And here's another interesting stat; the number on 1024 * 768? 32.05%. And the number with 1200 or higher? 61%. Why does this not surprise me? Ah, yes, I remember now… because when someone buys even an entry level PC these days, odds are that it will come with at least 1280*1024 resolution.

And given that this change would take some time to do,

Bite your tongue, bite your tongue, don't say it, don't say it…

by the time it were made (IF it were made), do you want to put any bets on what the numbers would be by then? By then, 1024 will be the new 800.

But until then, casual viewers will still be seeing, by default, distorted images shrinking further and further into the centre of their increasingly large screens.

And now… let's put it to the user base. (New thread following in a couple of minutes…)

[nooutlet]

Again with the mythical "70%".

It isn't mythical. It's right there in the most recent statistics that I had access to. You can argue that it's inaccurate for PBase and errs in favor of my position, but I certainly didn't make it up.

Sorry, WHO is likely to have a higher resolution? Programmers, or people who are into photography?

I would say that programmers, being that they are into their computers would have better hardware and therefore higher settings while photographers would have better cameras as those are the tools of their respective trades.

Well, let's suppose that Medium gets upsized as well, since a 400 pixel wide image may as well be a thumbnail these days.

...on your monitor maybe(and mine here at work).
So now instead of some high resolution users clicking "original", we've got the low resolution users clicking "medium".

Which option sounds more appealing?

I would say that at least at the high resolution, users will be able to find the link for "original" easier. On lower resolutions, users would have to scroll down(potentially quite a ways down).

Sigh, sometimes it's not all about you, y'know?

Really? Who else would you have been worried about misunderstanding you? No one else seems to be against setting larges at whatever size.

Won't be ABLE to?

I meant to finish that sentence "...without scrolling".

Let's just get rid of all resizings and the only option will be "original".

Theeere you go [being ridiculous].

If that was me being ridiculous then I don't see how the statement I originally called ridiculous isn't. After all, your argument is that the vast majority of originals are less than 1200 pixels wide and (in 2 or 3 years) the vast majority will be using screen resolutions that allow for those images to be displayed without horizontal scrolling. So why not forget about the "distortions" altogether? Who needs them?

You want to estimate how many casual viewers don't even LOOK at the resize options and just bounce because they see a rather unimpressive image, which is VERY impressive when seen as the photographer intended?

By the same token, how many casual viewers wouldn't LOOK at the resize options when the image is too big on their screen to see it entirely? And what resolution does the average "casual viewer" have his screen set to, hmm?

I'm amazed at your ability to read things as a personal slight.

I haven't taken anything as a slight. I called your idea ridiculous, you said my statement was in the running for being ridiculous. But when one makes a statement that is ridiculous, one can be thought of as "being ridiculous [with that statement]". I don't really think of it as all that bad to be called "ridiculous". It's just a way of saying "I greatly disagree with that".
Now with the lines about being an idiot, it just doesn't seem like those statements clarifying that images won't be upscaled had any appropriate audience whatsoever. The implication made by them is that someone was confused about your idea. Since I'm the guy saying 1200 pixels is too big, the assumption would be that I'm the guy confused. Maybe you just thought that I must be confused because it doesn't seem to you that there are that many pictures above 1200 pixels and so your idea doesn't seem radical.

It's possible to disagree with someone without off-handed dismissals like "ridiculous".

"Off-handed dismissal"? It was an opinion of an idea which I qualified with reasons. I'm not just going around insulting members. Maybe you take my comments as though they are oppressive authoritarian "browbeating" because of my position, but as I said, we're only sharing opinions here and I wish you wouldn't have such thin skin about your idea of 1200 pixel "large" images.
Maybe you just want the "business-ese" version: "I feel that changing the large size to a maximum of 1200 pixels is not prudent when considering the screen resolutions of our userbase. If in 2 or 3 years, screen resolutions can be shown to be overwhelmingly 1200+ pixels, then your suggestion will be considered appropriate. My views are solely my responsibility and they do not necessarily reflect the views of PBase, Inc."

Why is linear in quotes?

Because it WAS a quote; specifically, from one of your earlier posts.

Generally quotes around a single word are used to denote sarcasm with regards to the use of the word in the previous context.

And here's another interesting stat; the number on 1024 * 768? 32.05%. And the number with 1200 or higher? 61%.

I wonder... is it possible that these stats reflect your own resolution abundantly?

Why does this not surprise me? Ah, yes, I remember now…
And given that this change would take some time to do,

Bite your tongue, bite your tongue, don't say it, don't say it…

Gee, you are playing "nice"(note the use of quotes for sarcasm).
To me, the cutesy stuff and cheap shots are more annoying than something like "this idea is ridiculous because..."

And now… let's put it to the user base. (New thread following in a couple of minutes…)

You know this new thread isn't going to prove anything. So far the results aren't in your favor with only 2 people voting 1200(one of them you, I assume), but forum polls generally don't work very well. The reason is that people with a motive are generally the people that vote. It's like if I started a thread called "Who likes sardines?" and then had a "Yes/No" poll, the "yes"s are going to be inaccurately high because people who don't like sardines aren't going to enter the thread. Besides that, you're not going to hear from the most important audience in this issue, the "casual viewer". Maybe he'd agree with you, maybe he wouldn't, but you certainly won't find him voting in your poll.
Listen, I'm on your side too. I don't want to display pictures you took so that they are less impressive than they should be, but I have to consider that the people using 1024x768 aren't going to stick around long enough to find the "medium" link when they're annoyed about horizontal scrolling.

Now, I would hope that to some degree you're on my side too. Assuming your stats aren't skewed to your own screen resolution because of your own visits to your page, you still have one third of the users on 1024x768 or below. Can you accept that there are galleries which would be annoying to browse at 1024x768 if the large was set to 1200 pixels and the viewer didn't know about the resize options?

[alangrant]

I'm not sure whether it's best to add to the poll thread or this one. I'll wade in here to try to add some variety to the ping-pong between Alan in AU and Nooutlet! Reading through the thread these are the things that occur to me:

1. I think people's views on this issue are influenced by an underlying assumption that is rarely stated explicitly: who is the target audience for viewing PBase pictures? Alan in AU referred to "people who are into photography". That suggests that the target audience for PBase photographers is ... other photographers. That's a valid viewpoint, but I've always thought of PBase in a different way - as a way to reach a wide audience of people who are may or may not spend a lot of time on photography, but may nevertheless be interested in the subjects of my photos. I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" view here, but we should be aware of how it affects our perception of the "best" size to display photos. In my case it causes me to lean towards the idea that viewers will be broadly representative of web users as a whole - which may well mean, as Nooutlet said, that on average they have less advanced hardware than the w3schools users.

2. A related aspect is the issue of geographical spread. These forums tend to be disproportionately dominated by keen photographers based in wealthy English-speaking countries. In that situation it's easy to fall into the impression that "everybody" has high-spec computers less than 2 years old with high speed broadband connections. But that may not be representative of the typical viewer on a worldwide basis.

3. It seems hard to pin down reliable statistics about typical monitor sizes, but for what it's worth, my stats are quite different from Alan in AU. I don't have a complete picture because statcounter only saves the last 500 views. But I've checked on at least 5 occasions over the several days since this thread started, and every time the proportion with monitors 1024 or 800 pixels wide was comfortably over 50% - at this very moment, it's up to two-thirds of my recent viewers. When I had extremetracking stats, which recorded over a longer time period, the results were similar.

4. If people upload images larger than will fit in a 1024-pixel screen, there is no way to avoid distortion for many viewers. All we can do is choose between two different types of distortion. With a low value for the "large" size, most people can see the full photo, but it won't be ideal quality. With a high value, many people won't be able to see the full photo without scrolling. That seems like a pretty fundamental distortion to me - presumably most photos are intended to be appreciated as a unified whole. I'd guess that relatively few people notice the results of poor compression, but everybody notices if they are forced to scroll. Of course these people could choose to view medium size - and suffer even worse image quality.

5. Overall, I have to agree with nooutlet that it's too early to go above 1000 pixels wide. And for reasons I mentioned in the "poll" thread, I think even that could only apply to horizontal images - I don't see how the vertical dimension could be increased beyond the current 800. That leaves the question of whether it is worthwhile making the relatively small change to 1000 pixels in the horizontal dimension - which anyway will have no effect on the many users like me who have uploaded all photos at 800px, in order to have control over the way most viewers see them.

This ended up being a lot more long-winded than I intended, sorry about that...

[akmc_in_au]

Really? Who else would you have been worried about misunderstanding you?

Who said that I was concerned about any *specific* person misunderstanding me? Obviously I considered it POSSIBLE that some unspecified readers might be unclear on the core of the issue, which made it worth the emphasis. If you look in the Poll thread, you'll see that there was even some misunderstanding on this point between Flemming Bo and Scott Dommin, both of whom are experienced and intelligent pBasers.

No one else seems to be against setting larges at whatever size.

That's a point worth noting, but I don't assume that every reader of the thread is also a poster to it. Ergo, I write for the TOTAL (potential) audience, not just part of it. If I'm writing something to you specifically, it's addressed to you specifically.

Let's just get rid of all resizings and the only option will be "original".

Theeere you go [being ridiculous].

Why did you have to modify my quote by adding "[being ridiculous]" to the end of it? Did you think I'd misunderstand what you meant?

That's me "being facetious", incidentally.

If that was me being ridiculous then I don't see how the statement I originally called ridiculous isn't.

Perhaps because... it isn't? Here's the key point. This change would put control back in the hands of the gallery owner. If the gallery owner is prepared to risk some viewers having to scroll but see their images without distortion, then s/he has that option. If they don't, then they still have the option of putting up images which are no more than 800 pixels in size. Nothing takes that away from them. That's why it's not even remotely "ridiculous".

After all, your argument is that the vast majority of originals are less than 1200 pixels wide

No it isn't. That's a point which I consider to be relevant, but it's not my argument. My argument is that people who have elected to put up images which are 900 or 1000 or 1100 pixels wide shouldn't have people landing on their pages and seeing a mooshed down version by default.

and (in 2 or 3 years) the vast majority will be using screen resolutions that allow for those images to be displayed without horizontal scrolling. So why not forget about the "distortions" altogether? Who needs them?

Because I know, and you know, and pretty much everyone who's read this thread or voted in the poll knows, that there will be times when viewers with smaller resolutions (and I'm not arguing that there aren't any) MAY prefer to see the entire image on screen even if it has to be distorted for them to do so. To do that, they would still need the reduced images. I'm not arguing that either. However my own view is that that should be plan B, rather than the current situation of pBase dictating, whether the gallery owner wants it or not, that it's to be plan A.

Why is linear in quotes?

Because it WAS a quote; specifically, from one of your earlier posts.

Generally quotes around a single word are used to denote sarcasm with regards to the use of the word in the previous context.

No, according to most grammar textbooks quotes around words, whether one or more, are used to denote a quotation. Hence, the reason that they're called quotation marks, rather than sarcasm marks. I simply didn't see the point in using a quotation tag block for a single word. I'm aware of the alternative usage, but asking whether there was any more to it than that was just a little bit De Nero. ("Are you bein' sarcastic to me? Are YOU bein' sarcastic to ME?")

I wonder... is it possible that these stats reflect your own resolution abundantly?

I wonder... is it possible that it occurred to me to configure a filter in Google Analytics to filter out my own hits as suggested on the home page of that site?

Gee, you are playing "nice"(note the use of quotes for sarcasm).
To me, the cutesy stuff and cheap shots are more annoying than something like "this idea is ridiculous because..."

Well I could always have put it the way Trimoon and a number of others have over the last couple of years, but I think you'd appreciate that even less. Many of the natives are restless over many issues, not least the pace of fixes and improvements. This fact will slip out from time to time, and if that's the worst that you hear, you're doing well. Whether you're annoyed by hearing the message or whether you're annoyed by the format in which the message is given, it's not going to change the underlying reality. But for clarity, I don’t think that anyone is pointing the finger at you personally on that and I wasn’t in the quote either.

You know this new thread isn't going to prove anything. So far the results aren't in your favor with only 2 people voting 1200(one of them you, I assume), but forum polls generally don't work very well. The reason is that people with a motive are generally the people that vote. It's like if I started a thread called "Who likes sardines?" and then had a "Yes/No" poll, the "yes"s are going to be inaccurately high because people who don't like sardines aren't going to enter the thread.

Which would suggest that the (currently) one third of respondents who voted " I never put up images larger than 800 pixels, so I'm not fussed" shouldn't have been in that poll in the first place, at least in theory. And yet... there they are.

I'm not looking for the results to be "in (my) favour"; I'm looking to get a view of what the membership feels, whatever that may be. People can agree with me, they can disagree with me... it's not going to stop me getting out of bed tomorrow and grabbing the 40D for a photo shoot. I've stated my own views on this and why I think that way; if it's persuaded anyone, great, if it hasn't, that's life. To be honest I'd be *personally* happy with an increase to 1000 since I seldom go above that size anyway. However my concern is that with the (and I'll put it bluntly this time if you prefer) massive inertia in pBase I'd rather that the change be made once, rather than increasing it once now (or whenever it could be done) to 1000, followed by the members AGAIN having to lobby for an increase 2 years after that. 1200 just seems to me to be the best compromise between the current situation, and allowing open slather where the default view would always be the Original (or could be set to the Original) regardless of how huge the Original might be. Other people have different feelings, and they're entitled to have them.

Listen, I'm on your side too. I don't want to display pictures you took so that they are less impressive than they should be, but I have to consider that the people using 1024x768 aren't going to stick around long enough to find the "medium" link when they're annoyed about horizontal scrolling.

I do take your points; in particular I take the point about someone on a small res screen needing to scroll down to find the resizing link. There's no ideal solution, short (perhaps) of pBase reading the viewer's screen size and popping open the most appropriate image for it. And even that's not necessarily ideal, even if it were technically feasible or practical. (Which, with the number of "unknown" monitor sizes I've seen since I migrated from Google to StatCounter last weekend, I'm not certain of.)

Now, I would hope that to some degree you're on my side too. Assuming your stats aren't skewed to your own screen resolution because of your own visits to your page,

As I said it won't be from mine, though the other Alan's stats were of interest to me and I've been thinking about it. It IS possible that mine have been skewed a bit by colleagues visiting my galleries. Quite a few people I work with know about them. Most of them have plain vanilla Dells with common or garden flat screens (which could REALLY do with colour calibrating)... and 1280 * 1024 resolution, despite being anything up to 3 years old (our PC refresh cycle) and being merely accounting or other administration boxes.

you still have one third of the users on 1024x768 or below. Can you accept that there are galleries which would be annoying to browse at 1024x768 if the large was set to 1200 pixels and the viewer didn't know about the resize options?

Yes, I'd concede that. But I do feel that it's still something that should be the gallery owner's call. The closest you have to that now is where the owner can send a link to the /Original shot, but that's obviously not so helpful if someone finds the image from a search engine.

[nooutlet]

Fine, I'll accept all of these explanations for your posts. I'm used to people on forums wanting to prove that their idea is the popular opinion as well and I'm not too used to emphatic clarifications of things that hadn't been obviously confused yet.

Why did you have to modify my quote by adding "[being ridiculous]" to the end of it? Did you think I'd misunderstand what you meant?

That's me "being facetious", incidentally.

That was pretty funny, especially the use of "being facetious". Well played.
The DeNiro thing was funny too, but it wasn't that I was annoyed at the possible sarcasm. Actually, sarcasm seemed like the likely explanation to me from the usage, but I couldn't understand why you'd be sarcastic about it being a linear model. That's why I asked and I felt that the "because you used the word linear" was a brush-off.


Back to the point, I think it's much more reasonable to suggest that gallery owners be allowed to default the original image, yet it's a tough thing to give everyone control over because of the potential misuse of that feature I guess. Personally, I'm in favor of allowing artists to choose, but I can see why we wouldn't want the poor choice of a few artists to hurt the experience of the visitors with low resolutions.

I'm not looking for the results to be "in (my) favour"; I'm looking to get a view of what the membership feels, whatever that may be.

Ah well, my mistake. You seemed pretty confident, so I figured you expected the majority to agree with you.

Now, it would be great if we checked the screen resolution and smartly displayed the most suitable image. That would be really cool. So maybe if the original is smaller than the screen show that, otherwise show the large. Then that could be the choice:
"Default image size: Large / Smart resizing"
That might work... I'll look into getting that to work on my server and then run it up the flagpole to see who salutes.