Airplane Pictures home

Home » Forums » Site-related » How about 1920 for members and 2400 for full members?

How about 1920 for members and 2400 for full members?

Robert Kaffan 
Member
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 10
Posted 12 October 2017 - 18:20 CET

We live in an era of 4K monitors and high speed internet.

How about allowing Full HD for members and 2400 pixels wide for full members?

Those 1600 pixels wide images are just too tiny on a 4K monitor.

Also, when you have a truly sharp 20 MP picture, downsampling it to 1600 pixels wide is sometimes impossible without getting jaggy lines and pixelation. It would help tremendously to be able to upload images at 1920 pixels wide.

Kuba Balcerski 
Member
Joined in January 2016
Posts: 24
Posted 12 October 2017 - 18:58 CET

I think majority of users around the world still use 1920x1080 monitors. Doing what you say right now would mean turning all of the rules upside down and that could be too much for the site.

Let me explain - the picture need to be in exceptional quality to post in 1920x already, and not many are truly capable of delivering such pictures. With any member allowed to post in 1920x this would mean lowering the standards of the site, at least in my opinion. Anyone could post images with less or more poor quality, and by "anyone" I mean majority of us here because, as I said, not many people use 4K monitors anyway. And with that in mind, I don't see myself watching FM's photos in 2400x that would exceed my monitors size. That would look very bad. That's a good idea, but I think it's not a right time for such decision. Curious what others think about this...

Karol Trojanowski 

News admin
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 34
Posted 12 October 2017 - 18:58 CET

I would say no. Okay, there's a group of people who have a 4K monitors. But there's also a really big group of people who don't have 4K, and I think it's a vast majority of our members. Even Full HD is not a rule sometimes as I know people with 1600px monitors (or even less!) for example.

I'm not sure if you know that viewing a picture in 1920px is not really pleasant experience when you have a 1600px or 1366px wide display. With 2400px shots it will be even worse situation.

The next thing is that allowing for 1920px for (let's say) "normal" members will cause more rejections, as some people will try to push a poor quality photo in big resolution. It won't work for me.

Aron 

Member
Joined in August 2016
Posts: 11
Posted 12 October 2017 - 19:29 CET

I also say no. You may have a few people with a 4K monitor, but most people (like me) don't have it. I work with a 13 inch laptop (1440px wide display) so it's already hard for me to see a 1600px picture. And I'm not going to buy a new new laptop for that, sorry.

Robert Kaffan 
Member
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 10
Posted 12 October 2017 - 19:36 CET

It would be optional, of course. Nobody would force anybody to upload 1920 pixels wide. People would be perfectly able to keep uploading 1600 pixels wide.

Jetzguy 

Member
Joined in July 2016
Posts: 62
Posted 12 October 2017 - 20:03 CET

I hear you Robert but most of the uploads are not even 1600X now. Most full members stick with 1600 or less so unless everybody is using the full 1600X and full 1920X they are allowed there is little reason to change the rules. I would love it if everybody would upload at 1600X or greater because I use a 24" monitor and the smaller sizes get lost on the big screen like you say.

Kuba Balcerski 
Member
Joined in January 2016
Posts: 24
Posted 12 October 2017 - 20:05 CET

Yeah, but unfortunately, I think "nobody would force anybody" will not be working here. People will upload in 1920x just because they can. Some may not agree with it, but that's just what sits in people's minds. And it seems some photographers can't restrain themselves from uploading pictures in higher size.

I've seen plenty of posts on this forum in which people were asking why this or this photo was rejected for being soft - and then I see it's uploaded in maximum possible size (1600px) when downsizing the shot to 1280x or even 1440px would solve the problem. What would happen if 1920px was possible, when some don't even know how to properly sharpen the image for 1600px? I guess the number of rejected photos would increase much. Sorry to all the people who may feel insulted by my words, but I can't explain the matter in any other way.

What I mean by all of this is that, in my opinion, the site and their users (most of them at least) are not ready for such a change.

Leaving the topic of proper editing for such sizes, I'm still keeping my argument (aswell as Karol's and Aron's) about not having a 4K monitor which would result in problematic use of the site for those with lower-end monitors (watching FM's photos in 2400px on 1920px display or lower).

I still hope to see what the main admins think about this because it's a very interesting matter.

Robert Kaffan 
Member
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 10
Posted 12 October 2017 - 20:51 CET

Actually, sometimes a very, very sharp 5000 pixel wide image look very soft at 1600 pixels. Not only soft, but pixelated. I had pictures rejected for softness when downsampled to 1600 pixels, despite the fact that they are very sharp at full resolution.

A 5000 pixels wide sharp picture looks OK at 2400 pixels. It is kind of OK at 1920 pixels, but at 1600 pixels registration letters and numbers get pixelated because they are just too narrow on a sharp 5000 pixels wide picture. When you have 20 megapixels of information, sometimes you just can't convey all that information to a picture that is 1600 pixels wide. There are just not enough pixels to show that information

Karol Trojanowski 

News admin
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 34
Posted 12 October 2017 - 22:30 CET

Robert, I see your point of your last comment. But I cannot agree with statement that 20MP photo reduced to 1600px size is oversharpened. If it is in your case, then - don't misunderstand me - maybe you should change something in your editing style, because I've never had such a case, and I've worked with a lot of different cameras (from "low-res" 18MP Canon 60D, through 20MP Canon 7Dmark2, Canon 70D and 22MP Canon 5Dmark3 to "hi-res" 30MP Canon 5Dmark4 and some others).

I can agree that such jagges which you're talking about, can appear when you're resizing a photo to approx 1280px. Then okay, registrations or (for example) "United States of America" title on E-4B or VC-25, or "German Republic" title on German government planes, that parts can be easily oversharpened.

If you have jagges on registration letters at 1600px try to sharpen your image selectively and just not sharpen that part of your photo. It should work, but if it doesn't, you can also try to smoothen the letters (there's a special tool for that in photoshop).

Robert Kaffan 
Member
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 10
Posted 12 October 2017 - 23:20 CET

Let's take this full resolution picture. (It can be downloaded in full resolution, just click three dots.)

It is not the best of my shots and yes, it was rejected by screeners here.

But, can you downsample it to 1600 pixels wide without getting jagged lines in OK-TVP and Smartwings? I simply can't downsample it nicely. Whatever image editor I use.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/KmAqY9iaU5syg3hy2

Would love to see a 1600 pixels wide version of this photo, nicely downsampled without jagged, pixelated lines.

Dominik Kauer 

Member
Joined in May 2016
Posts: 9
Posted 13 October 2017 - 07:17 CET

Keep in mind, if you upload the picture in 2400px it could be stolen (and most of thieves don't giva a f*** about watermarks) and printed about 40cm, if you print lowres. And in the end, it will affect the servers in case of capacity (fielsize) and loading time. In the end this is kind of a database and not a stock website like 500px.

Ricardo Hebmüller 

Full member
Joined in August 2014
Posts: 73
Posted 13 October 2017 - 11:01 CET

I think that 2400 and 1920 pixels are too much. I use a Dell 25in led monitor for which the best recommended resolution is 2048x1080.

At the same time, I see many 1200 pixels very beautiful pictures in this website that I would be delighted to see them in a bigger size.

By the way, I have already considered purchasing a 4k monitor but I still didn't. Are they really good / suitable for aviation photos editing?

Thanks!

Karol Trojanowski 

News admin
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 34
Posted 13 October 2017 - 14:28 CET

Robert, I attach two edits of your photo. One in 1600px size, and other - 1280px size. I didn't nothing but only sharpening, no color adjusting etc.

For me, the result is absolutely acceptable. And again - if you think those photos are oversharpened, you just can sharpen them a little bit less than I did.

Attached photos:

Robert Kaffan 
Member
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 10
Posted 14 October 2017 - 23:07 CET

Karol, I uploaded a similar photo to yours and it was rejected on grounds of being soft. If you uploaded your 1600 pixels wide version, believe me, it would be rejected by censors.

Karol Trojanowski 

News admin
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 34
Posted 15 October 2017 - 13:36 CET

before I became a Full Member, I've uploaded nearly 200 photos, so I think my edits are pretty acceptable.

But if you think they are soft, then sharpen a little bit more. I can't see a problem.

Robert Kaffan 
Member
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 10
Posted 15 October 2017 - 14:16 CET

Karol, so I re-uploaded the picture again. The sky was denoised in Dfine 2 but despite that, it looks very "dramatic" on the equalized picture. So, I do not expect it to pass through censors. It will be rejected again, most likely.

It can be seen here in the queue:

https://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2017/10/15/976175.jpg

Robert Kaffan 
Member
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 10
Posted 16 October 2017 - 11:46 CET

Ricardo, 4K monitors are like any other monitors. There are poor TN panels that are not suitable for picture editing. But there are also IPS panels that are suitable.

4K video is stunning, highly addictive once you see it.

Before buying, just make sure your monitor can handle at least 8 bits per channel (full RGB gamut) and your operating system can increase the font and icon size.

I run a 4K monitor in Windows 8.1 and I had to set the font size to 200% to be able to work.

All my main programs do support high resolution monitors and are able to render user interface with big icons and controls.

Using a 4K monitor with standard font sizes in Windows is kind of not possible. Normal fonts are just too small on the screen.

Ricardo Hebmüller 

Full member
Joined in August 2014
Posts: 73
Posted 17 October 2017 - 02:19 CET

Thank you Robert for your time and patience to explain about 4K monitor, very useful information to me.

Youssef Âaziz 

Member
Joined in April 2016
Posts: 74
Posted 18 October 2017 - 01:38 CET

I would say like many others, no ! Not for the pleasure of saying "no" but most photographers would not go up to 2400px and as Jetzguy said "most full members stick with 1600 or less" for the image steal "debate" at least. 1600px is very correct, 1920px is awesome for high quality shots.

Thanks Robert for the infos regarding 4K monitors

Regards

Robert Kaffan 
Member
Joined in June 2016
Posts: 10
Posted 18 October 2017 - 09:56 CET

I forgot to mention. If you buy a 4K monitor, make sure your graphics card can handle it.

4K screen is basically 4x FHD monitors (1920*1080 * 4 = 8.294.400 pixels = 8.3 megapixels).

To get a smooth movement, 60p refresh rate is desirable. So the graphics card must support 4K mode in 60p.

Attached photos:

Jump to the top

Log in to post in the forum.

Terms and Conditions | About | FAQ | Photo Use | Privacy Policy | Online 1473 (95 members)
© 2006-2017 Airplane-Pictures.net | E-mail us: Team@Airplane-Pictures.net
All photos are copyright © to their respective photographers and may not be used without permission.