Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:24 am
I agree that resizing small photos to be bigger should not be done, I've entered it as a bug.
Community Discussion of Church Technology
https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/forum/
https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4580
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).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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.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.