Page 2 of 3

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:24 am
by jdcr256
I agree that resizing small photos to be bigger should not be done, I've entered it as a bug.

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:30 pm
by mkmurray
mkmurray wrote:I will preform some more tests on larger non-resized images (only cropped to be square) to see if your resize algorithms perform better when they have more pixels to work with in the source image.

Ok, I tried a 2000 x 2000 image tonight, and the results are a bit better with an original size, square-cropped source image (that is, if the Church resizing algorithm must be utilized).

I'm still unsure why my image can't be used as is, if you tell me maximum pixel limits, maximum file size allowed, and any other image quality restrictions (perhaps DPI, etc.) that you need adhered to. But if I meet the requirements, then my image should be left alone, seeing as I've already found the right mix of dimensions, file size, and image quality that I fit best for my image.

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:29 am
by jdcr256
mkmurray wrote:Ok, I tried a 2000 x 2000 image tonight, and the results are a bit better with an original size, square-cropped source image (that is, if the Church resizing algorithm must be utilized).

I'm still unsure why my image can't be used as is, if you tell me maximum pixel limits, maximum file size allowed, and any other image quality restrictions (perhaps DPI, etc.) that you need adhered to. But if I meet the requirements, then my image should be left alone, seeing as I've already found the right mix of dimensions, file size, and image quality that I fit best for my image.


We do some compression to keep image sizes as small as possible. We are anticipating storing a huge number of photos, and we need to keep the weight as small as possible to minimize the loading times of the parts of directory that use photos.

We have had some discussion in the past few days about how much trade-off we should have between quality, and image weight.

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:21 pm
by mkmurray
jdcr256 wrote:We do some compression to keep image sizes as small as possible. We are anticipating storing a huge number of photos, and we need to keep the weight as small as possible to minimize the loading times of the parts of directory that use photos.

We have had some discussion in the past few days about how much trade-off we should have between quality, and image weight.

This is completely understandable. What I'm hoping for is that if you guys are willing to publish some maximum requirements for all of these restrictions, that I can be sure to upload an image that meets your demands, allowing the source image to be left untouched from my original upload.

I feel that some of us users will be able to find a balance of file size, image quality, and dimensions for each individual photo better than an algorithm can. For users who don't want to deal with the requirements, then the algorithm works sufficiently well with fairly decent results.

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:28 am
by jamiecking76
Originally Posted by n.augusta.wardtech Image
My ward is starting to get ready to show members how to post their family pictures on the ward directory website. However, when I went to go post mine and my wife's picture, it gives me an error stating that it has to be less than 50K. So I get 2 different pics resized to under 50K. Then I get another error saying that, "Your graphic height or width is too large. It needs to be '135 height X 180 width' or smaller." What gives? If I crop it any smaller, the faces aren't going to be seeable. I'll be cutting my face or the Mrs. face out. Any help would be great and how do I explain this to the rest of ward?

Thank you,
Jamie

Ok...I am using PaintShop Pro to resize the picture and when I finally got the picture to the size that is accepted, it's a very small picture and you can't hardly even see the image. I don't understand why the picture has to be that small?

Thanks,
Jamie

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:42 am
by russellhltn
The current LUWS does have very small photos. You'll have to crop them down to the faces with little else. It's not expected to change anytime soon.

Please note that this discussion is about the Beta Directory which allows larger photos.

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:43 am
by jamiecking76
Ok...I think I have figured it out. I got one that is doable but it took a lot of trial and error to get it to the point that was acceptable.

However, we do have several families that are big in the ward...yes, even in the South we do have big families...so what am I to do when I have pictures of families at that size? Not going to be noticeable as much?

Thanks,
Jamie

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:54 am
by zaneclark
n.augusta.wardtech wrote:Ok...I think I have figured it out. I got one that is doable but it took a lot of trial and error to get it to the point that was acceptable.

However, we do have several families that are big in the ward...yes, even in the South we do have big families...so what am I to do when I have pictures of families at that size? Not going to be noticeable as much?

Thanks,
Jamie


I use PhotoShop Elements to reduce the resolution to 40 and then I can make the photo 2x3. Even with the reduced resolution, with a photo this small, it still looks pretty good.

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:02 am
by jamiecking76
zaneclark wrote:I use PhotoShop Elements to reduce the resolution to 40 and then I can make the photo 2x3. Even with the reduced resolution, with a photo this small, it still looks pretty good.


Well, what I did was I cropped it and used the percentage rather than pixels which I think is where the pixels was confusing me a bit. I used 56 by 53 percent and it worked.

I guess I am going to have my work cut out for me when I go to start working with the rest of the ward.

Thanks,
Jamie

Importing Photos from old website

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:21 pm
by LDSNYC-p40
Does anyone know if there is a way to import the photos from the old lds.org directory, or if this will occur automatically at some point?