Image size question

[Zen_ish]

Fadeout and Xray brought up an interesting question on the Jessica Alba post. (interesting to me anyway)
It's about the definitions of what a "bigger" image is. And this is a question I've always wondered about.
Is it bigger if it's the same kb size and larger ratio or is big only referring to the jpg kb size?
And what if it's higher res, smaller ratio and still same kb size? Wouldn't higher res be bigger than bigger ratio and smaller res?
Just wondering what everybody else thinks.

[Spidy]

Its an ongoing battle from day One... Resolution is more important in my opinion...

[fadeout001]

I usually have both up. If there is a smaller pic but clearly better res I will leave it up and if you have a bigger one with at least decent res I leave it up that way people have a choice since some people prefer size over res. With me it depends on the picture whether or not I will take size over resolution. However with the Alba post they were the same res but bigger shots. This is most likely because I resize my pictures down slowly instead of finding a number that puts them below 500kb and just doing them all at that size. X has stated he hates resizing his pics so I am guessing he has been doing this as many of his pics are the same resolution. Also with the recent site issues I think we should start cleaning up the site a bit by removing LQ pics when HQs are posted which of course depends on the mod as we all have different tastes for what constitutes HQ bigger size or res, however KBs don't make a difference as a pic with better res & ratio can be smaller in KB size depending on the file format, original transfer, ect. A good example of this is .bmps can be 700 x 500 and be 2.8 megs while a jpeg is the same size and res and will be somewhere below 50KB range.

Since X had issues with me removing his pics I will just start pming him when I upgrade one of his posts and tell him to look at it himself so he can see that I am posting larger images than what he posted then I will remove them. Really though most of the replacements I make are in posts where members lazily resize their pics like Hillbilly does/did where all of his pics are 2200. Most people don't go 1 by 1 through their pics and resize each one down to a size just under 500kb. I do and therefore many posts made by people who don't are likely to get replaced if someone else does such as xray's as he posts many of the same celebs I do so if he does resize the lazy way then he should expect his posts to be replaced.

[Zen_ish]

I do mine one by one in Photoshop, and my favorite way is to start by cropping out the needless background and still keeping them near 500. (more skin... less floor and walls) And keeping the res pretty high and the compression ratio of the jpg somewhere around medium.

[Xray]

I use Irfanview, but I usually do each pic one by one to get each one under 500kb. I was looking at kb size when I said mine were the same, but Fade, you were looking at pixel size. I could care less about the pixel size because irfanview just shows them as screen size and then they become blurry if the actual pixel size is really big, but I understand what you meant when you said yours were bigger.

I think this argument wouldn't take place if the NG size was upped from 500 kb to 1 mb, because then we could show most of the pics in their original size without having to take time to resize them.

[fadeout001]

I use Irfanview, but I usually do each pic one by one to get each one under 500kb. I was looking at kb size when I said mine were the same, but Fade, you were looking at pixel size. I could care less about the pixel size because irfanview just shows them as screen size and then they become blurry if the actual pixel size is really big, but I understand what you meant when you said yours were bigger.

I think this argument wouldn't take place if the NG size was upped from 500 kb to 1 mb, because then we could show most of the pics in their original size without having to take time to resize them.

Pixel size is important when discussing HQs as as a 3000 image with good res is significantly better than a 500 pic with good res. The only time I ever leave smaller pics up regardless of their quality in any sense is if they are untagged while all the larger images are tagged. For me though posts like the Eliza Dushku Allure may issue are prime examples of different res vs. size. I posted 3 scans: One medium with decent res, one larger image with ok res, and one smaller image with great res. Depending on preference, what you like to look at, and what you want to do with the pics depends on which one you may get.

Xray you should just give up on trying to push the 1mb size. It will never happen. 500kb is a good range as it keeps pics at decent size and quality without overloading server space as quickly. This keeps costs down and the site alive and free. All of which are good things. I shouldn't have to say this but I will: Remember the pics are a bonus on this site as it is primarily a news site and the focus shouldn't be on the pics.

[Morpheus]

I think this argument wouldn't take place if the NG size was upped from 500 kb to 1 mb, because then we could show most of the pics in their original size without having to take time to resize them.

i think this argument wouldnt be here if u would just accept chief's rules and stop trying to implement a bigger size....these rules have set in place fora reason.....ive heard this nonsense since chief started the site....we should have thise size or this size......stop whining its not gunna change anytime soon......and accept that he has graced this site with being able to post these kind of thing's........like everybody else said. this site is a newsforum (mainly) with a perk of celeb's......just accept it and move on................

[Xray]

Ok. That was 3 days ago's comment. I've moved on.

[Head_Monkey]

I use Irfanview, but I usually do each pic one by one to get each one under 500kb. I was looking at kb size when I said mine were the same, but Fade, you were looking at pixel size. I could care less about the pixel size because irfanview just shows them as screen size and then they become blurry if the actual pixel size is really big, but I understand what you meant when you said yours were bigger.

I think this argument wouldn't take place if the NG size was upped from 500 kb to 1 mb, because then we could show most of the pics in their original size without having to take time to resize them.

Ok. That was 3 days ago's comment. I've moved on.

You sure???

http://www.newsgab.com/forum/316046-post6.html

http://www.newsgab.com/forum/319464-post1.html

Cause this makes reference number 3 to the size limit (that a 5 minute search could find), and the server is hosted in one of them US states that has the "3 strikes" rule. So I guess you get life in jail for asking the same question 3 times???

Oh yeah, yer on strike 2 on the "5 minutes time-out" thing too...

And for the record, unless you are printing these pictures in life size formats, and doing unspeakable things with them, you don't need hi res / hi dpi versions. Besides, your monitor can only display a certain amount of dpi anyways, so the excess pixels are wasted...

[computer2slow]

Besides, your monitor can only display a certain amount of dpi anyways, so the excess pixels are wasted...

It's not wasted if what you view with doesn't auto zoom out you'll get to see a tooth or nose fill you whole monitor. Wait that is a waste isn't?

[Zen_ish]

It's not wasted if what you view with doesn't auto zoom out you'll get to see a tooth or nose fill you whole monitor. Wait that is a waste isn't?

What if it was a nipple? Is that still considered a waste?