20 hours ago
9
|
EXCELLENT WORK DPR - It's Appreciated.
4 months ago
|
I'd just like to comment on the new picture viewing module now in place and working on the forums. Very nice interface indeed ... it pretty much has anything anyone could want. I hope this silences the critics. I know it has me. A big thumbs up to the developers!
--
Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill
|
Re: EXCELLENT WORK DPR - It's Appreciated.
In reply to Nightwings,
4 months ago
|
Nightwings wrote:
I'd just like to comment on the new picture viewing module now in place and working on the forums. Very nice interface indeed ... it pretty much has anything anyone could want. I hope this silences the critics. I know it has me. A big thumbs up to the developers!
I was curious as to what is new ?
Downloaded and analyzed the 3 (large display size) in-post images in the thread entitled, "test" today. They all contain a meta-data embedded sRGB color-profile, are down-sampled to a maximum 940 pixel-size, have had 2x2 Chroma Sub-sampling applied to them, and have had Quantization data-compression applied to them (with a Quality Factor of around 89%-90%).
No change whatsoever from previous DPReview display-system test-results. Am I missing something ?
|
Re: EXCELLENT WORK DPR - It's Appreciated.
In reply to Detail Man,
4 months ago
|
Detail Man wrote:
I was curious as to what is new ?
Downloaded and analyzed the 3 (large display size) in-post images in the thread entitled, "test" today. They all contain a meta-data embedded sRGB color-profile, are down-sampled to a maximum 940 pixel-size, have had 2x2 Chroma Sub-sampling applied to them, and have had Quantization data-compression applied to them (with a Quality Factor of around 89%-90%).
No change whatsoever from previous DPReview display-system test-results. Am I missing something ?
Click on my uploaded sample shot. NOT on the bottom link where it says "original size" .. Rather... click ON the picture itself. You will see an entirely new forums pictures viewing interface. It's excellent! imho.
--
Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill
|
Re: EXCELLENT WORK DPR - It's Appreciated.
In reply to Nightwings,
4 months ago
|
Nightwings wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
I was curious as to what is new ?
Downloaded and analyzed the 3 (large display size) in-post images in the thread entitled, "test" today. They all contain a meta-data embedded sRGB color-profile, are down-sampled to a maximum 940 pixel-size, have had 2x2 Chroma Sub-sampling applied to them, and have had Quantization data-compression applied to them (with a Quality Factor of around 89%-90%).
No change whatsoever from previous DPReview display-system test-results. Am I missing something ?
Click on my uploaded sample shot. NOT on the bottom link where it says "original size" .. Rather... click ON the picture itself. You will see an entirely new forums pictures viewing interface. It's excellent! imho.
--
Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill
I just did that, and then in another IE tab I displayed the one from the original link, which was displayed slightly larger and had much finer details. I used the whiskers around the mouth to verify the difference. Have I also missed something?
Brian
|
Re: EXCELLENT WORK DPR - It's Appreciated.
In reply to brianj,
4 months ago
|
brianj wrote:
Nightwings wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
I was curious as to what is new ?
Downloaded and analyzed the 3 (large display size) in-post images in the thread entitled, "test" today. They all contain a meta-data embedded sRGB color-profile, are down-sampled to a maximum 940 pixel-size, have had 2x2 Chroma Sub-sampling applied to them, and have had Quantization data-compression applied to them (with a Quality Factor of around 89%-90%).
No change whatsoever from previous DPReview display-system test-results. Am I missing something ?
Click on my uploaded sample shot. NOT on the bottom link where it says "original size" .. Rather... click ON the picture itself. You will see an entirely new forums pictures viewing interface. It's excellent! imho.
--
Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill
I just did that, and then in another IE tab I displayed the one from the original link, which was displayed slightly larger and had much finer details. I used the whiskers around the mouth to verify the difference. Have I also missed something?
Brian
Maybe I was missing something, I only tried the default which I guess is 'fit to screen', it can also be viewed at 100% and with a loupe which will be great for pixel peepers.
Brian
|
Re: EXCELLENT WORK DPR - It's Appreciated.
In reply to brianj,
4 months ago
|
brianj wrote:
Nightwings wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
I was curious as to what is new ?
Downloaded and analyzed the 3 (large display size) in-post images in the thread entitled, "test" today. They all contain a meta-data embedded sRGB color-profile, are down-sampled to a maximum 940 pixel-size, have had 2x2 Chroma Sub-sampling applied to them, and have had Quantization data-compression applied to them (with a Quality Factor of around 89%-90%).
No change whatsoever from previous DPReview display-system test-results. Am I missing something ?
Click on my uploaded sample shot. NOT on the bottom link where it says "original size" .. Rather... click ON the picture itself. You will see an entirely new forums pictures viewing interface. It's excellent! imho.
--
Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill
I just did that, and then in another IE tab I displayed the one from the original link, which was displayed slightly larger and had much finer details. I used the whiskers around the mouth to verify the difference. Have I also missed something?
Brian
There is zero, and i mean zero, difference between the '100%' view in this new system and the 'download original' image. Just to make sure i wasn't going mad i just layered the two in photoshop using 'difference' mode and got a totally black frame. It's the same image.
Yes we downsample to fit the window (if the file is bigger), but we now offer an easy way to see the original image either in the forum window or using the loupe. What more can we do, honestly? How can a downsampled image not show fewer finer details?
Simon
--
Simon Joinson, Editor-in-chief
dpreview.com
connect.dpreview.com
|
Re: EXCELLENT WORK DPR - It's Appreciated.
In reply to Detail Man,
4 months ago
|
Detail Man wrote:
Nightwings wrote:
I'd just like to comment on the new picture viewing module now in place and working on the forums. Very nice interface indeed ... it pretty much has anything anyone could want. I hope this silences the critics. I know it has me. A big thumbs up to the developers!
I was curious as to what is new ?
Downloaded and analyzed the 3 (large display size) in-post images in the thread entitled, "test" today. They all contain a meta-data embedded sRGB color-profile, are down-sampled to a maximum 940 pixel-size, have had 2x2 Chroma Sub-sampling applied to them, and have had Quantization data-compression applied to them (with a Quality Factor of around 89%-90%).
No change whatsoever from previous DPReview display-system test-results. Am I missing something ?
sigh
--
Simon Joinson, Editor-in-chief
dpreview.com
connect.dpreview.com
|
Re: EXCELLENT WORK DPR - It's Appreciated.
In reply to Simon Joinson,
4 months ago
|
Simon Joinson wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
Nightwings wrote:
I'd just like to comment on the new picture viewing module now in place and working on the forums. Very nice interface indeed ... it pretty much has anything anyone could want. I hope this silences the critics. I know it has me. A big thumbs up to the developers!
I was curious as to what is new ?
Downloaded and analyzed the 3 (large display size) in-post images in the thread entitled, "test" today. They all contain a meta-data embedded sRGB color-profile, are down-sampled to a maximum 940 pixel-size, have had 2x2 Chroma Sub-sampling applied to them, and have had Quantization data-compression applied to them (with a Quality Factor of around 89%-90%).
No change whatsoever from previous DPReview display-system test-results. Am I missing something ?
sigh
Fear not, my good man. The aforementioned tests were conducted prior to the rollout today of the new regime. The 100% view seems to have problems working (perhaps when the original pixel-size exceeds some maximum size, as in the case of your DPReview Gallery image), and the "Loupe" did not seem to work (in any case) last time I checked, but nothing of quality rolls out instantaneously ... so I shall patiently await the asymptotic progression to sheer and unmitigated perfection ...
|
To Simon & Team
In reply to Nightwings,
4 months ago
|
It's been a bumpy road implementing the new forum code for sure. DPR is on the right path with this and I appreciate both the work and the current forum execution. No doubt there will continue to be evolutions in the forum coding & galleries, please keep up the fine effort & work.
--
Best regards,
Doug
Bird galleries on PBase
General photography galleries on PBase
|
Correction: EXCELLENT WORK DPR - It's Appreciated.
In reply to Detail Man,
4 months ago
|
Detail Man wrote:
Simon Joinson wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
Nightwings wrote:
I'd just like to comment on the new picture viewing module now in place and working on the forums. Very nice interface indeed ... it pretty much has anything anyone could want. I hope this silences the critics. I know it has me. A big thumbs up to the developers!
I was curious as to what is new ?
Downloaded and analyzed the 3 (large display size) in-post images in the thread entitled, "test" today. They all contain a meta-data embedded sRGB color-profile, are down-sampled to a maximum 940 pixel-size, have had 2x2 Chroma Sub-sampling applied to them, and have had Quantization data-compression applied to them (with a Quality Factor of around 89%-90%).
No change whatsoever from previous DPReview display-system test-results. Am I missing something ?
sigh
Fear not, my good man. The aforementioned tests were conducted prior to the rollout today of the new regime. The 100% view seems to have problems working (perhaps when the original pixel-size exceeds some maximum size, as in the case of your DPReview Gallery image), and the "Loupe" did not seem to work (in any case) last time I checked, ...
100% View and Loupe do indeed work - they just may take a while to download the display-data (as they process and download the display-data for the entire image-frame).
... but nothing of quality rolls out instantaneously ... so I shall patiently await the asymptotic progression to sheer and unmitigated perfection.
I am liking what I am seeing ! Much appreciated ...
|
Exactly !!
In reply to Doug J,
4 months ago
|
Doug J wrote:
It's been a bumpy road implementing the new forum code for sure. DPR is on the right path with this and I appreciate both the work and the current forum execution. No doubt there will continue to be evolutions in the forum coding & galleries, please keep up the fine effort & work.
--
Best regards,
Doug
Bird galleries on PBase
General photography galleries on PBase
Well put Doug and 100% agree. If only some would give them a bit of time.
Danny.
PS: Just going through your bird gallery there Doug, top stuff mate and wonderful variety and amazing colours. Having a coffee and going back
--
Birds and macro. NEX and m4/3
http://www.birdsinaction.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nzmacro/
|
upload still impossible without Flash
In reply to Nightwings,
4 months ago
|
Unless I miss something, it is still impossible to upload to the gallery without installing Flash on one's computer. And, as far as I can tell, there is no word on any intention to remove this limitation.
MaxTux
|
Word on the street is that a "Flash Mob" is forming ...
In reply to MaxTux,
4 months ago
|
MaxTux wrote:
Unless I miss something, it is still impossible to upload to the gallery without installing Flash on one's computer. And, as far as I can tell, there is no word on any intention to remove this limitation.
...
|
Flash in the pan
In reply to MaxTux,
4 months ago
|
MaxTux wrote:
Unless I miss something, it is still impossible to upload to the gallery without installing Flash on one's computer. And, as far as I can tell, there is no word on any intention to remove this limitation.
MaxTux
If an old curmudgeon like me can update to the latest and greatest... so can anyone.
--
Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill
|
Re: Flash in the pan
In reply to Nightwings,
4 months ago
|
Nightwings wrote:
MaxTux wrote:
Unless I miss something, it is still impossible to upload to the gallery without installing Flash on one's computer. And, as far as I can tell, there is no word on any intention to remove this limitation.
MaxTux
If an old curmudgeon like me can update to the latest and greatest... so can anyone.
Not always quite that simple. Some old curmudgeons are stuck with Flash 10.x because 11.x + will not function with their beloved internet browsers. I endure fairly regular Flash errors and sometimes Flash crashes like a good soldier, but it does seem like uploading an image could very likely potentially be made to proceed with more basic (and less techno-intensive, finicky, and fickle) functionality ?
And yes, there are indeed essential reasons why the beloved browser is by necessity retained ...
|
Re: Flash in the pan
In reply to Detail Man,
4 months ago
|
Detail Man wrote:
Nightwings wrote:
MaxTux wrote:
Unless I miss something, it is still impossible to upload to the gallery without installing Flash on one's computer. And, as far as I can tell, there is no word on any intention to remove this limitation.
MaxTux
If an old curmudgeon like me can update to the latest and greatest... so can anyone.
Not always quite that simple. Some old curmudgeons are stuck with Flash 10.x because 11.x + will not function with their beloved internet browsers. I endure fairly regular Flash errors and sometimes Flash crashes like a good soldier, but it does seem like uploading an image could very likely potentially be made to proceed with more basic (and less techno-intensive, finicky, and fickle) functionality ?
And yes, there are indeed essential reasons why the beloved browser is by necessity retained ...
I agree, flash is the biggest pile of doggie doo since DOS, I have been using 64bit IE9 in vista for the last five years, and the latest from the adobe website is that it is still incompatible with that browser. Considering it is over five years since vista 64bit was developed, you would think this would be enough lead time to upgrade this parasite product to go with the latest browser, but no, it is still beyond adobe.
Brian
|
Just get a little Foxy
In reply to Detail Man,
4 months ago
|
Detail Man wrote:
And yes, there are indeed essential reasons why the beloved browser is by necessity retained ...
Well, I as everyone my age started with Netscape... actually it may have been something else before that, but Netscape sticks out in my mind. When Netscape changed name/hands I went to explorer and never looked back until recently. I had been playing with various versions of Firefox over the years but never really adopted it as my default go-to browser until very recently. Now .. between all the plug-in available for it.. and the frequent security updates, I find it to be a robust customizable pleasing browser. Give it a try.
--
Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill
|
Re: Flash in the pan
In reply to brianj,
4 months ago
|
brianj wrote:
I agree, flash is the biggest pile of doggie doo since DOS, I have been using 64bit IE9 in vista for the last five years, and the latest from the adobe website is that it is still incompatible with that browser. Considering it is over five years since vista 64bit was developed, you would think this would be enough lead time to upgrade this parasite product to go with the latest browser, but no, it is still beyond adobe.
Brian
The problem, in my opinion lies more with microsoft IE9 than Flash. IE9 and IE10 are far more intrusive to the overall operating system than prior versions of IE. After installing IE9, I noticed odd graphics interactions with the desktop gadgets. The rendering engines are vastly different the prior IE releases. I switched to Firefox and couldn't be happier.
--
Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill
|
Re: Just get a little Foxy
In reply to Nightwings,
4 months ago
|
Nightwings wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
And yes, there are indeed essential reasons why the beloved browser is by necessity retained ...Well, I as everyone my age started with Netscape... actually it may have been something else before that, but Netscape sticks out in my mind. When Netscape changed name/hands I went to explorer and never looked back until recently. I had been playing with various versions of Firefox over the years but never really adopted it as my default go-to browser until very recently. Now .. between all the plug-in available for it.. and the frequent security updates, I find it to be a robust customizable pleasing browser. Give it a try.
Once again, things are not always so simple. My "beloved browser" is Firefox 3.6.28. For several reasons (including my system's video card, for one), I am not able to run more recent versions of Firefox (I have tried). Years of bookmarks from Firefox 3.x.x (for whatever reason) cannot be exported into more recent versions of Firefox. Cold, hard limitations trump "just believing".
Moral of this story is that nobody should assume that simply because this or that works on their own personal system, that others need only "get with the program". Different systems of different hardware vintage can and do have differing limitations where it comes to software applications.
And no, I am not going to run out and acquire all new system hardware over one (or even a few) software application(s), or what some web-site may think is the "only game in town" ...
|
Re: Just get a little Foxy
In reply to Detail Man,
4 months ago
|
Detail Man wrote:
And no, I am not going to run out and acquire all new system hardware over one (or even a few) software application(s), or what some web-site may think is the "only game in town" ...
You don't have to get something new... Even a five year old build should work just fine. Anything older than that, you're bound to run into the occasional brick wall.
Cheers.
--
Nikon AF - One Shot ..... One Kill
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
