Image size , A technical puzzle.

On 2015-07-12 05:45:16 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2015-07-12 05:26:00 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 21:38:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-07-12 03:30:38 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:39:06 -0400, nospam
wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Rick Sammon gave a presentation last year to one of the camera clubs I
belong to, so I thought of him. He hold model shoot courses:

what you fail to understand is that neccc is not offering a full course
on model photography.

You are always saying "i didn't say...".

Well, I didn't say NECCC is offering a full course on model
photography.

then why did you compare it to one?

There was no comparison made, but it was provided to show you what a
real model shoot involves since you obviously don't know.

I don't fail to understand anything here.

oh yes you do.

And you say I argue. This is your typical type of response.

i never said neccc offered the same thing as a dedicated model shoot
course.

Which post was it you talked about semantic games? Now it's not a
"dedicated model shoot course".

...but will you be able to keep the image files within the silly NECC
dimension and size guidelines for JPEGs?

Oh, oh. You've made a typo. There are three Cs in NECCC. nospam is
a stickler for properly typed initialisms

Here I was thinking that it was the New England Cricket Club.

I'll be damned!
There is a New England Cricket Club!
http://www.my-necc.com/default.aspx

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Well, I didn't say NECCC is offering a full course on model
photography.

then why did you compare it to one?

There was no comparison made, but it was provided to show you what a
real model shoot involves since you obviously don't know.

another incorrect assumption and your complaint should be directed to
neccc, not me.

once again, i'm telling you what goes on there.

whether you approve or not does not matter.

Just as they don't need your approval for their image size
requirements.

i never said they needed my approval. however, the size restriction is
without question, stupid. there is *no* reason for it. none.

they are limiting submissions to under 1 megapixel in an era where
entry level cameras are 24 mp and multi-terabyte hard drives are under
$100.

Do inform them about your complaints. Address the
letter "Dear Morons:"

does that work for you?

i never said neccc offered the same thing as a dedicated model shoot
course.

Which post was it you talked about semantic games? Now it's not a
"dedicated model shoot course".

is that not what it is?

Well, actually, Rick's courses are photography courses. Just about
everything the attendee learns when shooting models has application in
other areas of photography. The attendee who learns how to light a
model can apply that knowledge to portrait photography, for example.
Or wedding photography. Or child photography.

Technique as basic as using reflectors has application beyond just
shooting models. Knowing how to pose people has broad application.

which is why there's more to a model shoot than just lighting technique.

nice bit of backpedaling you did there.

On 7/10/2015 6:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:05:40 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.

But the 72ppi they require fit no printer but that was the common ppi
of CRT screens.

This one is at least 100 ppi




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.

See rule 22.



--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 6:41 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:24:14 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

I really wish someone would explain why two images with the same pixel
dimensions, and saved at the same compression level, would not be the
same size.

JPG incorporates an image compression algorithm. The size of the end
result depends on the complexity of the image to be compressed. A
comples image (say a landscape filled with trees) would not compress
as easily as, say, a uniform white image (or a uniform pink image, for
that matter).

Real-world images each have different levels of complexity and hence
are compressible to different extents. That's why when you compress
two different images you will end up with two different end results,
even though you have subjected them to exactly the same process.


thanks


--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 9:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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.

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.

Tony, I gotta agree with nospam. That is for a different competition,
the interclub competition. Not the NECCC atendee's competition.

I figured that out, but you did not tell us what the competition was,
and that it was different from the interclub competition. nospam
didn't seem to know either, since he just said it was probably an
NECCC entry.

while i wasn't 100% sure which contest it was, the evidence *clearly*
pointed to the neccc contest i originally linked, which turned out to
be exactly correct.

I don't think he was aware that there are two sets of
rules, but he won't admit this.

suffice it to say that i know *much* more about neccc than you do.


Can you **** a further stream than him, too.

--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 9:43 PM, nospam wrote:


i never said i know any nefccc staff.

prior to this thread, i never heard of nefccc, which is the northeast
florida cancer control collaborative, something else entirely.


Are you the same nospam who complains about playing with words? The typo
is obvious.

however, i do know people who have been or are affiliated with neccc.

In what capacity are they affiliated?






--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 9:43 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


Nobody said otherwise.

--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 9:43 PM, nospam wrote:
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),

I guess you call over ten years "recent."


but not specifically for models. it's whatever the
person borrowing it wants to do with it.


If you knew anything about the NECCC conference, you would realize that
there is a reality that few of the loaners are used for shooting models.

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




--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 9:43 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


It was, but buried in a lot of irrelevancies attacking the competition
rules. Nor did your original answer go into any detail explaining why.


--
PeterN

On 7/10/2015 9:43 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


Thank you,
I understand now. Just wish you had said that earlier.

--
PeterN