Image size , A technical puzzle.

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:46:18 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
I think you have to look at it from the viewpoint of the competition
committee. My own camera club requires a .jpg with the longest
dimension not to be more than 1400 pixels and at 72 ppi for the
monthly competitions. We do digital only now.

What difference would it make if the tag was set to 7
PPI? Or for that matter to 72000 PPI.

If it does make some difference, somebody is doing
something wrong!

It does make a difference. 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.

Somebody is in fact "doing something wrong". It does
not make any difference at all.

I'm not defending the rule. I'm stating what it is. You aren't going
to drag me into an argument about why someone else came up with the
rule or whether they should have set that rule.

Your question, properly asked, is "Why did the competition committee
set that rule?". I have no answer for that. I don't set the rules.

My guess as to "why?" is that the competition committee wanted to
provide some parameters so people wouldn't ask "What ppi should I
use?".

That's a good guess. It doesn't make any difference,
and the right way would be if they simply said it can
have any value for the PPI/DPI flag. Telling folks it
has to be 72 is telling them it makes a difference.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

based on his description, it's neccc, which is a rather well known
event with well paid staff.

It's an area-wide umbrella organization that any camera club in the
New England area can join. Most states, or groups of states, have
one. It's not well-known outside of New England any more than the
FCCC is well-known outside of Florida.

There are CCCs all across the country.

I am absolutely amazed that you know the salaries of the people in an
organization clear across the country from you. You wouldn't be
making **** up again, would you?

i do not make up ****.

i know several people who have been neccc staff or speakers at one time
or another and they were paid.

and how is it you know where i live? you wouldn't be making **** up
again, would you?

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.

http://www.neccc.org/p/clubs-join-neccc.html
http://www.neccc.org/p/about-us.html

limiting entries to 1024x768 and 1 megabyte is stupid.

NECCC entries are not limited to 1 megabyte.

yes they are.

from the entry form (which was previously linked):
http://www.greaterlynnphoto.org/members_entry00.php?request=neccc
File size can not exceed 1M, per file.

what part was not clear?

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, which can be found here (also
previously linked):
http://neccc14.neccc.org/2015_conf/P...ition-Rules_20
15.pdf

apparently, you found that particular passage he
http://www.pbase.com/image/138711973
which is about a competition specific to the bmcc and not the one being
discussed.

also note that it lists three separate competitions, fall, winter &
spring, all in the 2011-2012 season, and not the summer neccc event.

Learn to read before you make a statement.

take your own advice.

as usual, you're talking out your ass.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I think you have to look at it from the viewpoint of the competition
committee. My own camera club requires a .jpg with the longest
dimension not to be more than 1400 pixels and at 72 ppi for the
monthly competitions. We do digital only now.

What difference would it make if the tag was set to 7
PPI? Or for that matter to 72000 PPI.

If it does make some difference, somebody is doing
something wrong!

It does make a difference.

no it doesn't.

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?

regardless, a 72 ppi tag is meaningless.

what matters are the pixel dimensions, in your case 1400 or less.

I'm not defending the rule. I'm stating what it is. You aren't going
to drag me into an argument about why someone else came up with the
rule or whether they should have set that rule.

Your question, properly asked, is "Why did the competition committee
set that rule?". I have no answer for that. I don't set the rules.

the answer is because they're clueless dolts who don't understand what
they're doing.

My guess as to "why?" is that the competition committee wanted to
provide some parameters so people wouldn't ask "What ppi should I
use?".

that's a stupid reason.

such a question is an opportunity to teach the person asking what ppi
really means and why it makes no difference in an image that won't be
printed.

unfortunately, a committee who has no clue is not in a position to do
that, as they don't understand it themselves.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Digital images: The equipment used for judging this competition uses
1024 X 768.

what **** equipment is that?? have they not heard of hd projectors?
1920x1024 pixels is common now, and people frequently use them with a
home theater setup.

There must be some national requirement involved in that 1024 number.
The Florida Camera Club Council has the following restrictions on
digital.

the reason is that they have old projectors which they've probably had
for years and refuse to upgrade. it's not like an hdtv projector is
that hard to find.

Well, evidently you know what equipment all of the Camera Club
Councils in the US have. You must have learned that by a survey in
Coach. Or, since you've claimed that the people that run the group
are highly paid, you took the survey in First Class while peeping
through the curtain.

back to insults, i see.

evidently, i learned to read the guidelines (see below), where it's
clearly stated that their equipment is limited to 1024x768.

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?

i don't make up ****. unlike you, i learned to read.

http://neccc14.neccc.org/2015_conf/P...ition-Rules_20
15.pdf
New England Camera Club Council
Digital Projected Image Competition
RULES, GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES

do you see where it says 'digital projected image competition'?

what do you think that might mean??

also from that link,
Digital images: The equipment used for judging this competition uses
1024 X 768.

given that displays with that resolution are long obsolete, such
'equipment' could only be a projector.

sadly, 1024x768 projectors are still common, and with a primitive vga
input.

meanwhile, 1080p projectors are widely available, even at big box
stores. it's mass market stuff.

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.

nefccc and nefcc ? could you at least be consistent with your mistakes?

assuming you mean neccc, if you had actually read the contest rules and
guidelines (linked above and in other posts), it states that the
winning images will be *printed* in a bulletin.

Resolution should be 100. Winning images are reproduced in the NECCC
Bulletin and therefore need the large resolution size.

the images might also be posted on a web site, but that doesn't change
anything. any webmaster with even an inkling of a clue would resize
them appropriately as well as create thumbnails.

similarly, anyone doing the page layout for the bulletin would resize
as appropriate for the page.

Peter's not going to get anywhere educating the people who run the
NECCC. They're doing what all the CCCs do.

he might not, but that doesn't mean it's entirely a lost cause.

Why don't you take up the cudgel? After all, you know it all and they
are all morons. You should be able to show them the light.

i do what i can, but there are too many of the likes of you who argue
just to argue.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 04:15:32 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Digital images: The equipment used for judging this competition uses
1024 X 768.

what **** equipment is that?? have they not heard of hd projectors?
1920x1024 pixels is common now, and people frequently use them with a
home theater setup.

There must be some national requirement involved in that 1024 number.
The Florida Camera Club Council has the following restrictions on
digital.

the reason is that they have old projectors which they've probably had
for years and refuse to upgrade. it's not like an hdtv projector is
that hard to find.

Well, evidently you know what equipment all of the Camera Club
Councils in the US have. You must have learned that by a survey in
Coach. Or, since you've claimed that the people that run the group
are highly paid, you took the survey in First Class while peeping
through the curtain.

back to insults, i see.

evidently, i learned to read the guidelines (see below), where it's
clearly stated that their equipment is limited to 1024x768.

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?

i don't make up ****. unlike you, i learned to read.

http://neccc14.neccc.org/2015_conf/P...ition-Rules_20
15.pdf
New England Camera Club Council
Digital Projected Image Competition
RULES, GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES

do you see where it says 'digital projected image competition'?

what do you think that might mean??

also from that link,
Digital images: The equipment used for judging this competition uses
1024 X 768.

given that displays with that resolution are long obsolete, such
'equipment' could only be a projector.

sadly, 1024x768 projectors are still common, and with a primitive vga
input.

meanwhile, 1080p projectors are widely available, even at big box
stores. it's mass market stuff.

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.

nefccc and nefcc ? could you at least be consistent with your mistakes?

assuming you mean neccc, if you had actually read the contest rules and
guidelines (linked above and in other posts), it states that the
winning images will be *printed* in a bulletin.

Resolution should be 100. Winning images are reproduced in the NECCC
Bulletin and therefore need the large resolution size.

the images might also be posted on a web site, but that doesn't change
anything. any webmaster with even an inkling of a clue would resize
them appropriately as well as create thumbnails.

similarly, anyone doing the page layout for the bulletin would resize
as appropriate for the page.

Peter's not going to get anywhere educating the people who run the
NECCC. They're doing what all the CCCs do.

he might not, but that doesn't mean it's entirely a lost cause.

Why don't you take up the cudgel? After all, you know it all and they
are all morons. You should be able to show them the light.

i do what i can, but there are too many of the likes of you who argue
just to argue.

I'm with nospam on this one.

I've explored local camera clubs and found their requirements were
much the same. They seem to have found it hard to conceive of
exceeding VGA graphics and A4/Letter size sheets of paper. Fortunately
they seem to have advanced since then.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

the pixel dimensions are what matters, and clearly they're stuck in the
1990s if they want it at 1024x768.

Maybe this is not the case, but there can be reasons to ask such a
resolution, I can think about web-only view (no need for print) and
low-rate internet audience (not everyone in the world have Gbit
internet as default) as some of those reasons.
--
andrea - ri mi cci, name

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 04:15:31 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I think you have to look at it from the viewpoint of the competition
committee. My own camera club requires a .jpg with the longest
dimension not to be more than 1400 pixels and at 72 ppi for the
monthly competitions. We do digital only now.

What difference would it make if the tag was set to 7
PPI? Or for that matter to 72000 PPI.

If it does make some difference, somebody is doing
something wrong!

It does make a difference.

no it doesn't.

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?

regardless, a 72 ppi tag is meaningless.

what matters are the pixel dimensions, in your case 1400 or less.

I'm not defending the rule. I'm stating what it is. You aren't going
to drag me into an argument about why someone else came up with the
rule or whether they should have set that rule.

Your question, properly asked, is "Why did the competition committee
set that rule?". I have no answer for that. I don't set the rules.

the answer is because they're clueless dolts who don't understand what
they're doing.

The answer is because they have always done it that way.

My guess as to "why?" is that the competition committee wanted to
provide some parameters so people wouldn't ask "What ppi should I
use?".

that's a stupid reason.

such a question is an opportunity to teach the person asking what ppi
really means and why it makes no difference in an image that won't be
printed.

unfortunately, a committee who has no clue is not in a position to do
that, as they don't understand it themselves.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Your question, properly asked, is "Why did the competition committee
set that rule?". I have no answer for that. I don't set the rules.

the answer is because they're clueless dolts who don't understand what
they're doing.

The answer is because they have always done it that way.

both are true.

if they had a clue, they'd change their ways.

On 7/9/2015 11:09 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I recently submitted two images to a competition. Bothe were 100 ppi and
measured, in pixels, 1020 x 768, both were saved at the same JPEG
compression level. Both files were saved as 8 bit JPEG.

there is no ppi in a jpeg file.

there is a tag that *suggests* an initial size, such as for a page
layout app (and that tag may not necessarily be used, depending on the
app), but other than that, the tag is meaningless.

ppi only matters when printing.

Yes. They intend to print certain images.



anyone who requests a jpeg file at a specific ppi has no clue.

See above.


the pixel dimensions are what matters, and clearly they're stuck in the
1990s if they want it at 1024x768.


That may be true, but that is not my issue. One of the images was 500k
and the other a tad over 1 mb.
One of the images was a bit over 500 k. The other was over twice the size.

different compression levels and/or different amount of detail.


Originally they were both saved at the same level of compression. I had
to lower the compression level for the other to conform. Why, is my
question.

The size of the second image exceeded the size limit for the
competition, so I saved at as a slightly lower quality, to comply with
the size limit.

why is there a file size limit at all? especially for small images such
as 1024x768.

are they running this on an ancient computer with a tiny hard drive
such that they don't have enough space for all the entries?

a file size limit makes no sense and only motivates people to save in a
lower quality with more artifacts. why do they want people to submit
****ty looking photos??

contests like these are run my morons. the answer is to not participate
and optionally try to educate them.

That may be true, but doesn't answer my question. Which is again, why
should I have to lower the quality.


Why would there be such a large a difference?

see above.


I said they were saved at the same compression level.

The only thing I can thinnk of is that the smaller image was cropped a
bit more than the larger.

you said they both have the same pixel dimensions.

whether one had been cropped or not makes no difference. the computer
has no way to know.

That's what I thought. I mentioned that to provide all information.



--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 3:34 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:37:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

note the requirements:
Digital images: The equipment used for judging this competition uses
1024 X 768.

what **** equipment is that?? have they not heard of hd projectors?
1920x1024 pixels is common now, and people frequently use them with a
home theater setup.

There must be some national requirement involved in that 1024 number.
The Florida Camera Club Council has the following restrictions on
digital.

the reason is that they have old projectors which they've probably had
for years and refuse to upgrade. it's not like an hdtv projector is
that hard to find.

Well, evidently you know what equipment all of the Camera Club
Councils in the US have. You must have learned that by a survey in
Coach. Or, since you've claimed that the people that run the group
are highly paid, you took the survey in First Class while peeping
through the curtain.

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.



they are also too stupid to realize that computers and projectors can
scale to fit.

as i said initially, it's run by morons.


Sure enough, picking Texas I find that the GSCCC (Gulf States Camera
Club Council) requires 1024 x 768 pixels or smaller. No ppi stated.

that's slightly better. at least they realize ppi is meaningless.

Peter's not going to get anywhere educating the people who run the
NECCC. They're doing what all the CCCs do.

he might not, but that doesn't mean it's entirely a lost cause.

Why don't you take up the cudgel? After all, you know it all and they
are all morons. You should be able to show them the light.



--
PeterN