-
Welcome back Guest! Did you know you can mentor other members here at H-M? If not, please check out our Relaunch of Hobby Machinist Mentoring Program!
Image size testing
- Thread starter vtcnc
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 6,464
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,590
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 6,464
Uploaded at 4032 x 3024 jpg image file size on my disk = 3,365,218 bytes
Downloaded from HM, image is 960 x 720 pixels, can no longer zoom into it, downloaded file size is 149,047 bytes.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 6,464
Let's try again. Similar sized picture. Let's see if we can read "Auf" on the chuck. First, a thumbnail.
Original image 3,787,603 bytes, 4032 x 3024.
Can't read Auf, or Zu. The Zu is very prominent in the zoomed picture. Resultant downloaded jpg is 960 x 720 and 181,657 bytes. Nearly the same compression as the picture in the previous post.
Original image 3,787,603 bytes, 4032 x 3024.
Can't read Auf, or Zu. The Zu is very prominent in the zoomed picture. Resultant downloaded jpg is 960 x 720 and 181,657 bytes. Nearly the same compression as the picture in the previous post.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 6,464
Second test. Upload as full image. Same image as the thumbnail.
Will edit after posting.
Edit: Downloaded image is same size as thumbnail download. 181.7KB. Same resolution of 960 x 720. Compression ratio: 17.64:1 measured by pixel count, and 20.85:1 by byte ratio.
In downloaded photo, one can just make out Zu, which was very distinct in the original. Auf cannot be resolved in this version. FYI, Auf is located under the bright line on the drill chuck. Can't resolve the umlaut on the O on the chuck either. Doesn't seem to a a noticeable improvement.
Will edit after posting.
Edit: Downloaded image is same size as thumbnail download. 181.7KB. Same resolution of 960 x 720. Compression ratio: 17.64:1 measured by pixel count, and 20.85:1 by byte ratio.
In downloaded photo, one can just make out Zu, which was very distinct in the original. Auf cannot be resolved in this version. FYI, Auf is located under the bright line on the drill chuck. Can't resolve the umlaut on the O on the chuck either. Doesn't seem to a a noticeable improvement.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,061
What!?! LOL. You o.k.?! Bit early to be hitting the sauce isn't it?@vtcnc - I can see the floor, how is that done?
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,061
A thumbnail will show up in a gallery below the post. The image you uploaded is not considered a thumbnail.
I don't understand how you uploaded two different size photos. Was that intended and what are your trying to achieve here, I'm just slightly confused at this point?
Both photos seem fine to me...unless there is some other requirement I'm missing.
EDIT: ah, o.k. if you are trying to read the engravings on a wide shot...well, I don't have an answer for that. If we are trying to read stamping or an engraving in a wide shot such as this, I think we might need to reset our expectations.
If you are having the hosting software rescale images to 720 pixels on a side maximum, that is very disappointing. It is not an expectation consistent with the Web in 2022. This is the Web, not Usenet.
I’ll switch to linking external pictures, which has the unfortunate consequence of putting those images outside this forum’s control. They may disappear, which undermines this forum’s value. But no more than the current resolution policy does.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
- Messages
- 6,464
Hope I don't get in hot water for this but here goes. I want this forum to continue to be a good place to hang out. I like it here and want it to improve. I agree with the basic mission. I appreciate all the hard work that you and others put into this place. That being said, read on.
In both cases, I uploaded the same file, but either attached as a thumbnail, or as full image. The original file was 3.8MB. The forum sw severely compressed the image to 960x720 pixels and reduced the download size to 181K. This is not consistent with the forum membership guidelines stating unlimited pixel limits for diamond membership. https://www.hobby-machinist.com/premium/ I'm not even getting Gold level pixel limits of 1200x1200. We are getting less than what was promised "in print, online". In blunt terms, the pictures on HM now are low quality and lacking detail. If you will pardon the language, the pics s&ck. They are nowhere nice as they used to be.
Both of my uploads were severely compressed by the forum, so there is no difference that anyone can detect. The forum sw destroyed the details by over-compression. The original photo has tons more detail. Myself and others are trying to get most of the detail back. My original photo did capture the knurling details, and I could see the "Auf" on the chuck. The degraded version on HM, nope. I can compare the two side by side and the difference is huge. In the future, the disparity will get even greater. Jeepers, I have a 2 year old phone, and it doesn't even have the best camera on it. New phones have even more pixels and take amazing pictures. But on HM these days, we would never see this.
In my opinion, HM is deploying very aggressive lossy compression which severely degrades picture quality. It's like the difference between a 4K TV screen and viewing the same image on an old blurry 640x480 analog TV.
I'm agreeing with @jwmelvin, this is 2022, not 2001. My 2 year old Pixel4a shoots at 4032 x 3024. In 2015, my previous phone, Pixel 2XL took pictures that were 2592 x 1944. A company phone iPhone 5s in 2014 took 3264 x 2448 photos. My digital camera in 2007 EOS30D took pictures at 3504 x 2336. Had a Kodak DC290 digital camera in 2001 that took 1792 x 1200 pixel photos. What a clunker that thing was! (I had to dig through my older digital photos to examine them, was a blast from the past!)
So HM is not even at the year 2001 level photo resolution. Pretty sad state of affairs, especially considering it has been stated earlier that neither server storage nor server bandwidth are an issue. So why circa 1999 level photo resolution?
All of the above stated, we are still patient, and realize it may take some time. We just don't think we should party like it's 1999!
Respectfully yours.
-Bruce