thelordofthelight
Well-known member
This is definitely sharper than the the earlier image!Ok, trying it again w/ 2800, and it looks 100x better:View attachment 56850
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
This is definitely sharper than the the earlier image!Ok, trying it again w/ 2800, and it looks 100x better:View attachment 56850
If I pinch and zoom on a Samsung tablet, number 2 is noticable better.
I see that too on my iPad Pro. The eye in the 2nd Photo is clear while in the first it isntI’m viewing this on my iPad Pro 12.9 and the second image clearly looks better Steve. 1200px image looks soft.
I think it's safe to say most of your forum members have one 4k monitor, not all but most.In looking at both my test photos and other images, it's clear it's monitor dependent.
With the 5K monitor, the higher res images look better.
With the 1080 monitor, the 1200px image looks better.
With my iPhone they are identical.
With my iPad Pro, it's the second image.
2MB - it's a server limit. I might be able to adjust it, but have no clue where. I'd have to contact my web service and see. However, even for those larger files, 2MB should be enough. The larger version of the fish eagle was only 1.1MB saved at "10" in Photoshop. More detailed images will get larger of course, but let's see. If we run into issues, I can see if I can lift the 2MB limit on the server.I think it's safe to say most of your forum members have one 4k monitor, not all but most.
Is the size size limit the same at 2mp just 2800px on the long side?
oh yeah. Mo betta.Ok, trying it again w/ 2800, and it looks 100x better:View attachment 56850
I want to offer both options however, I’m concerned it might cause more confusing than it’s worth lol@Steve, might be worth an announcement post of new LR preset and the change.
Fair enough. What's the use case for 1200 px wide when it appears 2800 is much better, monitor allowing, and the 2mb limit is still there?I want to offer both options however, I’m concerned it might cause more confusing than it’s worth lol
In a post above @Steve indicated that he just increased the size limit to 2800px(presumably long side) but left the file size limit at 2MB. Previously based on tests I did a few days ago the limit was 1800x1800px or 2MB. So anything larger than those pixel dimensions gets downsized to 2800 for the upload and then get downsized again to fit the web page. Linked images only get downsized once to fit the web page for display....The server software accepted that image and resized it to 2800 x 1986 Pixels and 490.68 KB (502,457 Bytes) in size.
Server limits seem to be 2800 x 1986 Pixels and let the size float.
4K? I don't think they were offering that in 2011 when I bought my high-end NEC! LOL! The darn thing is still going strong. Maybe someday I'll have an excuse to "upgrade".......I think it's safe to say most of your forum members have one 4k monitor, not all but most.
Is the size size limit the same at 2mp just 2800px on the long side?
Pretty much my thought as well, I’m very happy with my 27” BenQ that isn’t a 4k monitor and does what I need both personally and for commercial projects. With over 5,000 members on these forums with a wide range of photography experience I doubt the majority is running 4k monitors.4K? I don't think they were offering that in 2011 when I bought my high-end NEC! LOL! The darn thing is still going strong. Maybe someday I'll have an excuse to "upgrade".......
Check out sales throughout the year and well next Black Friday. You would be surprised what you find and the detail you will discover. Possibly what you are seeing as sharp in the Iguana is not so sharp on a 4K. With all the Z9 and lens you have, a new monitor will come it at the bottom of the cost pile. I hate giving up working things as well. My father was a POW so I waste nothing. What I do with these types of things is "re-home" them, so say a college kid in need or ....4K? I don't think they were offering that in 2011 when I bought my high-end NEC! LOL! The darn thing is still going strong. Maybe someday I'll have an excuse to "upgrade".......
1200 actually looks better on "normal" HD monitors since there's no browser resizing. When I look at the comparisons here, on my HD monitor the lower res 1200px photos look better. However, when I look at the site on my 5K monitor, it's the higher res shots that look better. There's not really a great end-user solution, without a lot of confusing explanation that would probably just make the casual poster give up. I think the solution ultimately may be to have people upload higher res shots and have the site make smaller versions and than display the appropriate version based on the detected display.Fair enough. What's the use case for 1200 px wide when it appears 2800 is much better, monitor allowing, and the 2mb limit is still there?