|
 |
| | | Author: | cosmicray  | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 11:57 | | Subject: | remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | edeevo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 12:34 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
Wholeheartedly agree on this one... 
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:11 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:29 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Your logic is impeccable. Maybe you should inform Google, et al, why they should
drop all large images (and make scrolling easier).
My impression has been that most sites with any decent code will reconfigure
the images dynamically to deal with smaller views. I think there may be even
HTML tags that deal with that.
My original suggestion is valid.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | edeevo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Your logic is impeccable. Maybe you should inform Google, et al, why they should
drop all large images (and make scrolling easier).
My impression has been that most sites with any decent code will reconfigure
the images dynamically to deal with smaller views. I think there may be even
HTML tags that deal with that.
My original suggestion is valid.
|
You beat me to the punch... well done!
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:01 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, edeevo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Your logic is impeccable. Maybe you should inform Google, et al, why they should
drop all large images (and make scrolling easier).
My impression has been that most sites with any decent code will reconfigure
the images dynamically to deal with smaller views. I think there may be even
HTML tags that deal with that.
My original suggestion is valid.
|
You beat me to the punch... well done!
|
But it goes well beyond anything that you or I have said here ...
Mobile devices (Apple, Samsung, Nokia, etc) are using screens that are well in
excess of 72 dpi. They crave large images, because they need to dynamically adjust
those large images to provide a sharp representation on a small screen. If you
give the mobile device a 72-dpi image, at a purported resolution that is smaller
than the device can handle, you wind up with an image experience that is lacking.
2x or 3x is typical for what these devices want. Mobile is the future. Desktop
and laptop, will continue to exist, but they are no longer the future.
To be perfectly clear about what caused the suggestion in the first place ...
This morning I happened to notice that BL was missing an image. In my mind, I
knew that I had sold a few of those once upon a time. So I dug back in my dusty
archives, and found the old jpg file. The creation date is Thursday, October
7, 1999 3:29 PM. The size of the image 735 × 563 pixels. I used that image to
sell a few copies of that set, on eBay, before BL existed. eBay could handle
that image in 1999. BL cannot handle that image in 2015. It's time to change
that.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:16 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Your logic is impeccable. Maybe you should inform Google, et al, why they should
drop all large images (and make scrolling easier).
My impression has been that most sites with any decent code will reconfigure
the images dynamically to deal with smaller views. I think there may be even
HTML tags that deal with that.
|
It has always been possible by HTML code to resize images to be *displayed* in
any size, however this does not change the file size in bytes.
If unlimited upload sizes would be allowed and then simply resized for being
displayed in preferred (user setting) size it would cause a huge data traffic
with all these current gigapixel photo devices and would make the site slower
than it already is.
BrickLink once *had* an auto-resize function for large images which resized and
*saved*(smaller file size) the images to 640x480 but it was retired because it
caused a lot of problems.
One problem was that we then had to spent much more time for tweaking images
and less time for real catalog work because the system cannot recognize what
is shown on the image.
While 640x480 (or bigger if the site would be capable to show images adequately)
would be ok for sets, and maybe for other item types, it does not make sense
for many other items as long as the site does not use more modern techniques
to display images in regards to the various modern devices, such as 4k capable
mobile screens
http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=87
| | My original suggestion is valid.
|
I think it is not valid under the current system conditions.
Under better system conditions I might be in your boat
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb138026 | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | While 640x480 (or bigger if the site would be capable to show images adequately)
would be ok for sets, and maybe for other item types, it does not make sense
for many other items as long as the site does not use more modern techniques
to display images in regards to the various modern devices, such as 4k capable
mobile screens
|
Ah! If store tabs could be visible on high resolution screens, that would already
be a good starting point.
By the way, modern websites detect the resolution one is running to display appropriate
images. No bandwidth is wasted.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 15:25 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Stragus writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | While 640x480 (or bigger if the site would be capable to show images adequately)
would be ok for sets, and maybe for other item types, it does not make sense
for many other items as long as the site does not use more modern techniques
to display images in regards to the various modern devices, such as 4k capable
mobile screens
|
Ah! If store tabs could be visible on high resolution screens, that would already
be a good starting point.
By the way, modern websites detect the resolution one is running to display appropriate
images. No bandwidth is wasted.
|
If images are only resized, bandwidth is wasted as the images have to be stored
and loaded (then resized) based on the highest resolution.
There are techniques to resize images on the fly on the server based on the specification
the website sends.
AFAIK Brickset (for example) sends the required format to the Lego server when
loading the images.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | edeevo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:34 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
|
There is.
Most notebooks still have a resolution of max. 800-900 pixel in height.
This gives you a net height in stores of ~430-550 pixel, depending on browser.
See image below.
Allowing larger images requires more scrolling than we already have.
Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
Voted NO.
|
Except that there is simple coding tweaks that allow for image resolution adjustments
regardless of the max pixels for a screen (loads of websites use it... click
on image, it opens at a max size based upon the resolution of the device... click
on it again and pan left, right, up, & down to see it in high-res)... 
Additionally, should the site be restricted based upon the resolution restrictions
of one notebook? Does *any* website work that way?
So, again, I agree that large images *should* be *large*.
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:41 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| But why would you base BL on the worst resolution screens around? Some people
use phones (I am right now). Why not base the user interface on a phone screen
instead?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | But why would you base BL on the worst resolution screens around? Some people
use phones (I am right now). Why not base the user interface on a phone screen
instead?
|
AFAIK BrickLink has stated they are working on a mobile version.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Andy_Bell | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 15:24 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 15:31 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
Yes, why not storing images in 3 sizes? Small, large, and full size?
(What is full size btw.? Whatever someone decided to upload, or better consistently
uniformed?)
Why sticking to the small window width (in fact width was reduced) when completely
redesigning catalog pages?
Ask the developers...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
I voted yes.
Also, as viejos pointed out, the resizing which is done with the bricklink server
itself significantly distorts the image quality. (I'm wondering if the problem
is merely that the automatic resizing does not save the JPG output at a high
enough of a setting.)
I also think that now that they have recently updated the website with a feature
that automatically makes a thumbnail and small image out of a large image, there
really isn't any point even to submitting both small and large images anymore.
They should make submissions now ONLY large images, and the website can make
thumbnails/smaller images automatically out of them. In this suggestion, it would
mean that a large image would be able to be submitted for EVERY color of a part,
not just the base image.
Andy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
I voted yes.
Also, as viejos pointed out, the resizing which is done with the bricklink server
itself significantly distorts the image quality. (I'm wondering if the problem
is merely that the automatic resizing does not save the JPG output at a high
enough of a setting.)
I also think that now that they have recently updated the website with a feature
that automatically makes a thumbnail and small image out of a large image, there
really isn't any point even to submitting both small and large images anymore.
They should make submissions now ONLY large images, and the website can make
thumbnails/smaller images automatically out of them. In this suggestion, it would
mean that a large image would be able to be submitted for EVERY color of a part,
not just the base image.
Andy
|
Not a bad idea in theory, but more often than not, large images will have some
white space around the parts and/or will not be in 4:3 ratio. You really want
to max-out the 80x60 pixels that are available for the small images.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
I voted yes.
Also, as viejos pointed out, the resizing which is done with the bricklink server
itself significantly distorts the image quality. (I'm wondering if the problem
is merely that the automatic resizing does not save the JPG output at a high
enough of a setting.)
I also think that now that they have recently updated the website with a feature
that automatically makes a thumbnail and small image out of a large image, there
really isn't any point even to submitting both small and large images anymore.
They should make submissions now ONLY large images, and the website can make
thumbnails/smaller images automatically out of them. In this suggestion, it would
mean that a large image would be able to be submitted for EVERY color of a part,
not just the base image.
Andy
|
Not a bad idea in theory, but more often than not, large images will have some
white space around the parts and/or will not be in 4:3 ratio. You really want
to max-out the 80x60 pixels that are available for the small images.
|
Yeah, the automatic features are ones we should be staying away from IMO. I always
make my small images directly from the original instead of from the large image
and they look better that way. Remember, every time you save a JPG file, you
lose quality. Ideally all processing for an image should be done in a "non-lossy"
format such as BMP, and then the file is saved once (and only once) in the exact
JPG size needed.
When we upload an image to BL as JPG at max 640 pix, and then allow the system
to auto generate the small image, the file is saved twice (extra loss) and I'm
almost certain the BL resizer applies a sharpen process automatically as well
with every resize, so then you get the hyper-pixelization found on so many BL
small images. Compare these two:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 17:57 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, viejos writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Suggestions, Andy_Bell writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Having to scroll on images is the worst user experience since the internet exists.
|
I actually think the worst user experience on the internet is click on a small
image for a larger one/or view larger link and being presented with a large image
that is only fractionally larger than the one you were just looking at.
Why the tease? Why waste my time?
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?M=njo163#T=P
In this case they are previewing the large image, but at almost full size. If
larger large images were allowed then this effect would be minimize.
Considering the reason someone wants to look at the a large image is to see it
in more detail. The present size is limiting and submitters often submit images
that are smaller than the maximum allowed.
Why not a "full resolution" link on the large image tab? Which calls up the larger
(pixel and file size) for those who want to see it? Leave the large image at
it's present size.
Andy
|
I voted yes.
Also, as viejos pointed out, the resizing which is done with the bricklink server
itself significantly distorts the image quality. (I'm wondering if the problem
is merely that the automatic resizing does not save the JPG output at a high
enough of a setting.)
I also think that now that they have recently updated the website with a feature
that automatically makes a thumbnail and small image out of a large image, there
really isn't any point even to submitting both small and large images anymore.
They should make submissions now ONLY large images, and the website can make
thumbnails/smaller images automatically out of them. In this suggestion, it would
mean that a large image would be able to be submitted for EVERY color of a part,
not just the base image.
Andy
|
Not a bad idea in theory, but more often than not, large images will have some
white space around the parts and/or will not be in 4:3 ratio. You really want
to max-out the 80x60 pixels that are available for the small images.
|
Yeah, the automatic features are ones we should be staying away from IMO. I always
make my small images directly from the original instead of from the large image
and they look better that way. Remember, every time you save a JPG file, you
lose quality. Ideally all processing for an image should be done in a "non-lossy"
format such as BMP, and then the file is saved once (and only once) in the exact
JPG size needed.
When we upload an image to BL as JPG at max 640 pix, and then allow the system
to auto generate the small image, the file is saved twice (extra loss) and I'm
almost certain the BL resizer applies a sharpen process automatically as well
with every resize, so then you get the hyper-pixelization found on so many BL
small images. Compare these two:
|
If they allowed the format to be in PNG there wouldn't be a problem with
lost image data even when the system were to resize it. However, there wouldn't
be as noticeable of a problem with the system resizing the image in JPG if they
saved the JPG at a higher quality rate, like 95~100.
(Regardless, JPG is a terrible format is my opinion to use in this age --
it was great when 99% of people had dial up and websites had a strict limit on
bandwidth and online storage space).
But also in regard to what was stated:
"large images will have some white space around the parts and/or will not be
in 4:3 ratio. You really want to max-out the 80x60 pixels that are available
for the small images."
I always max out the large image pixels available. So if most people were doing
that, then I don't think there would be any problem with the system making
an automatic small image out of it -- as long as it could resize/resave at
a higher quality.
Andy
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
I agree and voted yes. There was a sticker sheet I scanned the other day that
was as big as a letter-sized sheet of paper. When I shrunk it down to 640 pixels,
I could barely read some of the lettering on the stickers. Image size restrictions
make for the possibility of errors and a real headache while working with stickered
counterparts, amongst other things.
The other thing I have to mention since we are on this topic, is the resizing
(by the catalog) of submitted images that *do* fall within the restrictions.
This is related to this suggestion because the pressure to keep things as small
as possible is the same thing keeping the lid on larger limit in general.
Here is a part I submitted recently, in three stages (see image below):
1. as resized by the catalog after being uploaded to BL (360 pix)
2. as I could have resized it myself, direct from the original (360 pix)
3. as I originally submitted it to BL (480 pix)
Such resizings after an image has already been resized and sharpened should never
happen. They reduce image quality and reflect poorly on the site *and* the submitter.
When this has happened in the past to one of my images, I resubmitted my own
resized image (that was only processed once - like the middle image below), but
the change was rejected as not being "significantly better".
In 2015, are we going to be quibbling over the few Kb of difference between 360
and 480 pixels? Images, more than anything else we have on BL, help to sell things,
and I just don't see the point of being stingy in this area.
Russell
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, viejos writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
I agree and voted yes. There was a sticker sheet I scanned the other day that
was as big as a letter-sized sheet of paper. When I shrunk it down to 640 pixels,
I could barely read some of the lettering on the stickers. Image size restrictions
make for the possibility of errors and a real headache while working with stickered
counterparts, amongst other things.
|
As noted above, the current store window (right frame) gives the limit for image
size.
They started with a new viewer on catalog detail pages, but this viewer is not
scrollable at all, which would make it impossible to view larger images on "normal"
screens.
| |
The other thing I have to mention since we are on this topic, is the resizing
(by the catalog) of submitted images that *do* fall within the restrictions.
This is related to this suggestion because the pressure to keep things as small
as possible is the same thing keeping the lid on larger limit in general.
Here is a part I submitted recently, in three stages (see image below):
1. as resized by the catalog after being uploaded to BL (360 pix)
2. as I could have resized it myself, direct from the original (360 pix)
3. as I originally submitted it to BL (480 pix)
Such resizings after an image has already been resized and sharpened should never
happen. They reduce image quality and reflect poorly on the site *and* the submitter.
|
The BrickLink image resizer which is part of the approval function never has
produced decent quality and has always been subject of our complaints.
| | When this has happened in the past to one of my images, I resubmitted my own
resized image (that was only processed once - like the middle image below), but
the change was rejected as not being "significantly better".
In 2015, are we going to be quibbling over the few Kb of difference between 360
and 480 pixels?
|
It's not the byte difference. As long as the image system of BrickLink does
not get overhauled in general, we try to adjust the images sizes in regards to
the item size, i.e. simlar items get similar image sizes, up to 640x480 max.
Of course this is limited to only few predefined image sizes.
Resubmit your 360 version and we'll approve it.
| | Images, more than anything else we have on BL, help to sell things,
|
Hey, we're praying this for years but many submitters still refuse to upload
images for their items. Maybe this will change when the new upload form goes
live which requires images included in item submissions.
| | and I just don't see the point of being stingy in this area.
|
Again, as in my reply to Ray, under better system conditions, I'd say yes.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2015 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: remove 640x480 limit for large iamges | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, viejos writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In 1999/2000, there was a valid reason for 640x480. In 2015, there is no reason.
Please remove the 640x480 limit on large images.
Many search engines now explicitly require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the long
side. BL can do much better with larger images.
|
I agree and voted yes. There was a sticker sheet I scanned the other day that
was as big as a letter-sized sheet of paper. When I shrunk it down to 640 pixels,
I could barely read some of the lettering on the stickers. Image size restrictions
make for the possibility of errors and a real headache while working with stickered
counterparts, amongst other things.
The other thing I have to mention since we are on this topic, is the resizing
(by the catalog) of submitted images that *do* fall within the restrictions.
This is related to this suggestion because the pressure to keep things as small
as possible is the same thing keeping the lid on larger limit in general.
Here is a part I submitted recently, in three stages (see image below):
1. as resized by the catalog after being uploaded to BL (360 pix)
2. as I could have resized it myself, direct from the original (360 pix)
3. as I originally submitted it to BL (480 pix)
Such resizings after an image has already been resized and sharpened should never
happen. They reduce image quality and reflect poorly on the site *and* the submitter.
When this has happened in the past to one of my images, I resubmitted my own
resized image (that was only processed once - like the middle image below), but
the change was rejected as not being "significantly better".
In 2015, are we going to be quibbling over the few Kb of difference between 360
and 480 pixels? Images, more than anything else we have on BL, help to sell things,
and I just don't see the point of being stingy in this area.
Russell
|
+1
BL banana always looked more like a corn on a cob to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Florida
Germany, Berlin
Canada, Quebec
United Kingdom, England
Lithuania, Panevėžys
