High res shot of early coraline growth.

[Danfish]

Just took this a few hours ago.
This is a shrunk, crop, of the full shot.
Its still about ~750k and 550x2,500pix, so obviously if bandwidth is an issue, you might want to skip it.

The original crop was over 2 megs, but I compressed the jpg more and reduced it by about 30% to get it in a managable size.


I love the colors to the right.
You also get a good look at my substrate, its a ton of crushed snail shells, love the look.

Also the red buds on the clam shell, if anyone knows what those are, let me know. I think its more coraline, but I've not seen it bud up like that.

http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=11452

 

[gregr]

Getting an error message

 

[30galreefkeepr]

may be some sort of coralline growth, i've got some in my tank that looks like that, but everything else is purple, those are almost like deposits as opposed to the actual algae. I believe, that and they are a bit more pink than most coralline.

 

[gregr]

Still not getting the image here.

 

[Danfish]

Don't know what to tell you Gregr.
A lot of other people have seen it, its not even on any kind of webspace I can controll, just a blind upload and host type site.
I wish I had another place to host it (and others in the futre) but it took me 3 hours to find that place (a place that will freely host large images without automaticly resizing them).

 

[30galreefkeepr]

danfish i would recommend photobucket, just make sure to compress the file a bit and they won't resize

 

[Danfish]

I use them (photobucket) for smaller images.
It seems like they resize anything over 1024 or 768.
Since I can take some pretty incredible high res shots I've been looking for a place to host the full blown ~2,500x4,500 massive shots. Opposed to croping out the section of intrest or shrinking it down to 16% normal size.

I know most people don't want to see pictures that big, but sometimes its nice to show the full thing. So I like to have the option avalible for the rare instance.

 

[thor32766]

let us know

 

[Danfish]

http://imagedump.filefactory.com/

They will take anything under a meg and not resize.
However you don't have any private folder options or anything, its all public and just save the bookmark to the picture.

I found another website that offers alot of room and private and upload options, but actualy sharing the pictures seems to be bugged and any time I try to visit thier forum for help I get some NASTY script errors. Whole website worries me so I'm not going back there anymore.

If anyone else knows of anything, please share.

 

[astrogazer]

make sure to resize your images to 'screen resolution' 72 DPI before doing your final save for the web, you'll be able to have a much 'larger' picture without having a large file size and since it matches the resolving power of most monitors you'll have no pixelized distortion.

 

[Danfish]

I thought DPI had nothing to do with display on a monitor?
Total pixels in an image are constant, while DPI just sets how large the pixels will be when printed?

Like I could have a 2,000x4,500 pixel image set to 1DPI, when shown on a monitor it will be the same size as the same image set to 500DPI.
Yet printed the 1dpi will be HUGE (2,000 inches by 4,500 inches) where as the 500dpi will be much smaller (4 inches by 9 inches).

 

[astrogazer]

No, it does not work that way, it's all interpreted by the device and/or driver doing the display work. They do relate to each other, but when it comes to the web and displaying to a relatively low resolution device, like a display monitor, even a good one, hell for that matter even a GREAT one size matters, in this case dots per inch. When displayed in Internet Explores, or most any other browser, the DEFAULT initial display size is 100%.

Try this for yourself ...
Take an image file ... resize it to 150DPI, 800x600 pixels ... save and JPG

Take the same image aand resize to 72DPI, 800x600 pixels ... save as JPG

open each in a www browser, you will find that the former is twice as large, logarithmically or 4x the size of the latter.

Try it ... let me know ...

 

[Danfish]

This image was saved at (roughly) 800x600 and 72 pix/inch
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=11583

This image is the same image saved at 800 x 600 and 150pix/inch
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=11584


They are identicle.
Thier filesize is identicle.
The only thing that changed is the ruler that tells me how large it will be once printed.

Now unless we are confused about printer DPI and some other type of resolution, then I don't know what you are trying to tell me.
As far as I know, pixels are constant.
If the file says its 800x600, then when its on the screen it will take up 800x600 pixels, reguardless to what the DPI is set too.

I did notice that by changing the Pixels/inch that it would automaticly alter the pixel size of the image, but I just edited that back to 800x600(roughly, to avoid distortion).

Perhaps when you are changing your DPI/pix per inch, you aren't noticing that it is actualy resizing the pixels of the image.




(fun fact: this is a reduction of the source image used to make the high res shot I originaly posted, its also not color corrected)

 

[astrogazer]

Pixel count is constant but the size of the pixel is not. Look at a newspaper, the photos there are 65-85 LPI (lines per inch, similar to dpi), the dots that make up the picture can be seen with the naked eye. Now look at a magazine, these are from 133LPI upwards to 300LPI, the dots cannot be made out with the naked eye. That's resolution in a nutshell.

Here is the same picture at 2 resolutions, the size is a constant 300x200 pixels, one is at 72 DPI and the other is at 150, the file size AND the image size is almost 4x different.

72 DPI:

150 DPI:

Displays have a fixed pitch, with the DPI being twice that of what a monitor can render it can do nothing but render the image at 72dpi the apparent result is an image that appears twice as large.

When you reset your pixels you altered the formula. I'm not trying to BS ya ... Ive been doing this for over 30 years and i typically don't confuse easily.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7513207#post7513207 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Danfish
This image was saved at (roughly) 800x600 and 72 pix/inch
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=11583

This image is the same image saved at 800 x 600 and 150pix/inch
http://imagedump.filefactory.com/full.php?id=11584


They are identicle.
Thier filesize is identicle.
The only thing that changed is the ruler that tells me how large it will be once printed.

Now unless we are confused about printer DPI and some other type of resolution, then I don't know what you are trying to tell me.
As far as I know, pixels are constant.
If the file says its 800x600, then when its on the screen it will take up 800x600 pixels, reguardless to what the DPI is set too.

I did notice that by changing the Pixels/inch that it would automaticly alter the pixel size of the image, but I just edited that back to 800x600(roughly, to avoid distortion).

Perhaps when you are changing your DPI/pix per inch, you aren't noticing that it is actualy resizing the pixels of the image.




(fun fact: this is a reduction of the source image used to make the high res shot I originaly posted, its also not color corrected)

 

[mgregg99]

Your second example at 150 dpi is actually 625 x 416. It did not stay at the 300 x 200 pixels as your first example. The other poster is correct. If you keep the 300 x 200 constant, it will display the same size no matter how many dpi you've selected.

Mike

 

[Danfish]

I'm 100% sure that when you are changing your DPI/PPI that you aren't noticing that its also changing the number of the pixels in the image. Pixel size, on a monitor, is a constant. On a monitor set to 800x600, there are 800x600 pixels on the screen, and anything calling for 1 pixel takes up 1 pixel of the 800x600. Now a monitor set to 1024x768 will have smaller pixels than a monitor set to 800x600 (if the screens are physicaly the same size) but still a file calling for 1 pixel will still always take up just 1 pixel (of the avalible pixels in the given resolution of the monitor).

 

[astrogazer]

I agree with what you're saying ... in part. If you take the two photos above and load them into photoshop and set them to their respective resolutions you'll see that they're in reality both 300x200. The part I DON'T agree with is that a 72 DPI 300x200 photo and 150DPI photo will be the same file size.

Danfish:
"They are identicle.
Thier filesize is identicle.
The only thing that changed is the ruler that tells me how large it will be once printed"

If you note the properties of the two files above you will note that the 150DPI Image is almost 4 times the file size.

The whole point of this exercise was to address the original post: which was the poster "Danfish" was compressing to get his file to fit into a smaller 'file space'. When you compress a jpeg, or for that matter whenever you save the file, you throw away image data that can never be retrieved, this is why it's called a lossy format, most professionals will use a lossless format (ie. TIFF) to manipulate their images and do their final web save as a jpg.
Anyway the point I was trying to get to was if you work in a 72 dpi, on a copy of the file, you will find you can get a much 'larger' image into a smaller file size.

 

[Danfish]

No, your 150dpi image isn't 300x200. Its 600x400.
When you took the 300x200 72 dpi picture and changed it to 150dpi, it also changed the number of pixels in the image. You don't have a 300x200 150 dpi picture, you have a 600x400 picture.


I understand jpgs and compression. I want to maintain size, number of pixels, dementions. I want a 2,400x4,500 image.
But to get that into a small file size, you have to lose SOMETHING. Sometimes I crop (like the original picture here is mostly croped out, I only show the bottom 500 left/right lines of pixels).
Sometimes I compress (throw out color information) altho that is normaly a last resort.

Sometimes I'll find some webspace that will let me host 6-10meg image files.

Most of the time I just drop the pixels (or "resolution") down to 800x600. (but that defeats the point of this discussion, which is to have and to post very high resolution images)