Image size , A technical puzzle.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Many, but not all of The NECCC speakers are paid, but not by NECCC. Many
are sponsored, i.e. Nikon or Canon pay them. In some cases the speakers
appearances are for the opportunity to promote their workshops. In any
case, speakers are irrelevant to the point. The speakers are not the
ones who determine the competition rules. Those who do are unpaid
volunteers.

there's a lot more sponsorship there than there used to be.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

another thing you got wrong is that neccc is actually well known
outside of new england, as is http://www.swmccc.org outside of
michigan, because they're the two with model shoots. while most
attendees will be relatively nearby, not all of them will.

Model shoots are no big deal. They are popular with the vendors
because they are a good way for a vendor to expose club members to
lighting and background products. They lead to sales.

wrong.

model shoots are very popular with attendees, and in fact, one of the
most popular.

vendors don't give a **** nor is there any pimping of lighting or
background products.

nikon/canon offer cameras and lenses for loan (which is actually a
recent thing), but not specifically for models. it's whatever the
person borrowing it wants to do with it.

in other words, you're talking out your ass again.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


I don't entirely understand the method, but
my impression was that it will match up contiguous
pixels in order to arrive at less actual pixel data.
When that goes far enough there are lines and
rectangles visible. I'd call that dropping out
data. If you have two pixels of different hues
and they're matched up to share the same hue,
that's data dropped out that can never be retrieved.
If my understanding is wrong I welcome a correction.

the short version is it removes high frequency components that you
can't see.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


When you ask someone to act as a judge and rate a couple of hundred
images for no fee, you don't want to make too many demands on them.

calibrating the equipment used is not making demands on anyone nor is
anyone insisting that the judges do it themselves.

in fact, it's making the judges work *easier* because there won't be
photos where they need to ignore weird colour casts or other issues due
to an uncalibrated workflow.

in other words, it evens the playing field for everyone.

It's "possible" to get you to use proper capitalization, but it's not
likely.

more of your insults. try sticking to the topic.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

How do you come up with this wild hair of a theory, though? Dunno
about the NECCC, but the FCCC doesn't project the images at all in the
triannual competitions. The images are viewed online by the judges.
It says so in their webpage. You wouldn't be making **** up again,
would you?

If the NEFCCC is run the same as the FCCC (and I suspect it is), Peter
will not see his images projected. He will send them in and they will
view them online. The NEFCC is in Springfield MA, and Peter is in NY.
If he is among the 20/25% who win a ribbon, it will be sent to his
local camera club. His image will be up for view in on the NEFCC
webpage.

Actually, I submitted to a projected image competition, open only to
participants in the conference. I will have the opportunity to sit
through the judging, if I so desire.


in other words, tony is wrong (again) and talking out his ass (again).

No, I'm not wrong. I said "If the NEFCCC is run the same as the
FCCC". You do understand what "if" means?

yes you are wrong.

the contest states 'digital projection' and peter even said he could
attend the projection and judging if he wanted. before digital, it was
an actual slide show.

also, the conference is neccc, not nefccc, which is the northeast
florida cancer control collaborative.

worse, you used *three* different versions of the name in your babble.
you got it correct the first time (neccc) but then called it nefccc and
nefcc.

you ****ed up and won't admit it.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

How do you come up with this wild hair of a theory, though? Dunno
about the NECCC, but the FCCC doesn't project the images at all in the
triannual competitions. The images are viewed online by the judges.
It says so in their webpage. You wouldn't be making **** up again,
would you?

If the NEFCCC is run the same as the FCCC (and I suspect it is), Peter
will not see his images projected. He will send them in and they will
view them online. The NEFCC is in Springfield MA, and Peter is in NY.
If he is among the 20/25% who win a ribbon, it will be sent to his
local camera club. His image will be up for view in on the NEFCC
webpage.

Actually, I submitted to a projected image competition, open only to
participants in the conference. I will have the opportunity to sit
through the judging, if I so desire.

in other words, tony is wrong (again) and talking out his ass (again).

Not relevant. I simply looking for an answer, which despite much
discussion, has not been approached.

the answer regarding why there are different image sizes was given on
my very first post.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

If I submit an image for a competition
that is more than 1400 pixels on the longest side, and/or not 72 ppi,
it will be rejected by the computer program that I use to upload the
image. It's happened to me.

what app is that?

How would I know?

because you claim to be using it.

do you not know the names of the apps you're using? if not, you're a
perfect target for being pwned.

You want a name for the app?

yes. that's why i asked.

When I first joined the club, we sent an email to the club with the
image(s) attached.

that's really all that's needed.

A couple of years ago they changed it to entering the image online
using a program they came up with. It's probably a program that is
used by other camera clubs and modified for the specific requirements
of our club.

that sounds like a web page which runs on *their* servers, where you
use a browser on your system to interact with it.

The program has some other requirements. Images must now have a
title, and the title has some specific requirements in length and the
use of characters. I had an image bounce once because I'd used some
character in the title that was not allowed. I forget what it was.

more stupidity.

there is *no* reason whatsoever to restrict the characters used in a
title of an image. none whatsoever.

i could see restricting the length because they don't want a paragraph
for a title, but the chances that someone would actually do that is
basically zero. despite that, i'm sure the length they chose is shorter
than it needs to be.

restricting what is used for file names is only because they're using
old school file systems (likely fat32) that can't handle much beyond
letters and numbers, which is yet another thing they should fix, but
they won't.

unicode has been around for quite a while and is widely used on
multiple platforms. it is not exactly new technology.

There's a user name and a password requirement, and it checks against
the member database and allows only paid-up members to upload images.

that one makes sense.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

The more detail (colour, patterns etc) there is in an image, the larger
the file size at a standard compression "quality" setting.

Thanks. I didn't realize that complexity of content was relevant to
image size. My thinking was that a pixel was a pixel regardless of
color. I will have to plahy further with that concept.

when it's *not* compressed, all pixels are equal.

when it *is* compressed, the content matters.

for example, compressing an image that's a solid colour (e.g., all
pixels the same) will result in something a whole lot smaller than a
photo of intricate details in a flower.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

There's no requirement.
The rules say "It is suggested (though not a requirement) that entries
be saved with the proper amount of compression so that the file size
does not exceed 350 KB. If saving from Photoshop, a quality setting of
between 7 and 9 is usually sufficient to produce a high quality file.
Keeping the file size below 350 KB makes e-mailing and handling
easier."

there is no such passage in the rules,

Unlike you, I don't make **** up.

based on what you've written in this thread and other threads, yes you
do.

The above paragraph is a copy/paste
from

http://neccc14.neccc.org/Interclub/E...erclub%20Compe
tition-Rules%20and%20Regulations.pdf
it's item 23 on page 4.

that's referring to a different contest.

Evidently, the difference is that the group has published a different
set of rules for the competitions at the conference to be held in July
in Amherst and the other competitions during the year.

yes.

So, the conclusion is that the file size is limted for some
competitions but not limited at others. You have to define NEFCCC
entries for which competition.

it's neccc, not nefccc.

In article , rickman
wrote:

One other comment, I can often spot the use of JPG for images with
writing on a solid background. The artifacts of the basic unit used
create spurious patterns around the letters. At low compression rates
this looks a bit like focus issues. At higher compression rates it can
look like ghosts.

that's because jpeg is designed for natural images, not synthetic ones,
such as computer generated graphics or text, which have very high
frequency components (sharp edges).

For those images another compression type should be
used such as GIF.

gif is a file format, not a compression type.

gif uses lzw which is lossless. it also has a limited colour palette
which is another form of compression and which can cause artifacts in
some cases.