Guest Message
Hi there Guest,

It looks like you are enjoying reading our forum, so why don't you register an account with us to stop seeing this message and benefit from many more features. Registration is easy and will only take you a few minutes.

If you already have an account with us, then click here to log in.

Thank you,

db

Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21) (Read 32570 times)
db
Web-lackey
Inukshuk
Voyageur
Offline



Posts: 5461
Location: Just off the beaten path.
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002
Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Jan 2nd, 2013 at 8:32am
 
Time for a new thread. The old one is here:
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
It's now closed..... Time to move on.

Anyone can (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links).

A poll for those that have submitted in the past. What would your preferred image size be? What I use has been 650 pixels max dimension for quite a while. Is bigger better? If so, how big?

The pictures I started QJ with were 400 max dimension and a 200 pixel default maximum. That was when 33k dial-up was all the rage. Wink

How 'bout it Goldilocks? I'm good with whatever you folks decide. Just asking.

FWIW - I'd love to add a silhouette of myself in a canoe to today's POD ... and say wish you were here. Wink
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
starwatcher
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 687
Location: Duluth, MN
Joined: Dec 21st, 2006
Re: Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Reply #1 - Jan 2nd, 2013 at 11:14pm
 
Neat picture today Lynda; nice effect, looks like your on the top of a cliff.

starwatcher
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Joe_Schmeaux
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 395
Location: Alberta
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2010
Re: Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Reply #2 - Jan 3rd, 2013 at 4:24am
 
db wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 8:32am:
A poll for those that have submitted in the past. What would your preferred image size be?

On the POD web page, I would like to see the photo as big as possible and the surrounding black matte as small as possible. Whatever photo pixel size works to fill up most of the page is fine with me.

These days, most web pages seem to be about a meg in size or slightly less, so that's probably a reasonable gauge of what loads "quickly enough" for the general population. Your server specs may have additional constraints.

Bigger POD file sizes will take up more archival disk space on your server too, no? Is this an issue? (IIRC, it was a couple of years ago). Maybe it would be nice for QJ to have a small permanent collection of "Best of the best" PODs, and a short expiry date for the daily updates?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
db
Web-lackey
Inukshuk
Voyageur
Offline



Posts: 5461
Location: Just off the beaten path.
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002
Re: Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Reply #3 - Jan 3rd, 2013 at 7:36am
 
Joe_Schmeaux wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 4:24am:
Bigger POD file sizes will take up more archival disk space on your server too, no? Is this an issue?

Nope. Well, naaah. Remember when a @GB HD was the cutting edge bee's knees?

Someone asked me and it made me wonder so I checked opinions and stats. The nearest screen resolution excluding mobile for QJ visitors is still 1024x768. Much of QJ tends to be a bit larger but....

I did a screen capture earlier tonight of the POD inside a PS window that was 1024x768. My desktop was blurred to protect the innocent. As I write this I have 9 windows viewable, some Safari windows have a few tabs. I often need to enlarge text to make it readable to my eyes. Pictures I get.

The other concern may be unauthorized use of other people's property. The biggest size wins.

I'm asking because someone made me wonder. I get to see them all the full resolution received so that's why I'm asking for input from visitors while asking providers what they think.

I'm fine if a consensus said bigger. Verticals are always a judgement call. Curious to see what the board will do with what's attached when new window right clicked.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
starwatcher
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 687
Location: Duluth, MN
Joined: Dec 21st, 2006
Re: Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Reply #4 - Jan 4th, 2013 at 1:24am
 
db, If I have to re-size them to submit it doesn't matter much to me, in my opionion, as long as it's some standard size - say 640 by 480.

starwatcher
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Joe_Schmeaux
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 395
Location: Alberta
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2010
Re: Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Reply #5 - Jan 4th, 2013 at 10:24am
 
OK, I guess there are three independent issues here: size of the image on the user's screen, the image's pixel dimensions, and the image's file size.

I've already commented on the first of the three.

More pixels will show a bit more detail, but on the web, the difference isn't huge compared to what we have now. Comparing a recent POD with Photobucket's 1023x682 version,
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
the difference is only noticeable if you zoom in a bunch. (200% zoom of the POD version will give you roughly the size I would like to see on my screen).

The third thing is file size. Once you choose your photo's pixel dimensions, JPEG software lets you choose from a wide range of qualities (high compression or low compression), depending on whether you want a big or small file. In some cases, this seems to make more of a difference to POD quality than pixel dimensions.

For example, in Lynda's morning fog shot, I thought there was a big difference between the POD version and your screenshot version: most of the subtle color graduations were lost in the POD version, and to me the picture had much less of an impact. You can get a reasonable quality photo from a 110k file (good enough for web display anyway), but if the original 1920x1080 got downsized to 640x480, then 110k also got downsized to (I'm guessing) 16k. That's definitely well into "utility grade".

So my preferred POD specs would be (a) twice as big on the screen (200% area, or 1.4 times as big in each dimension), 1024x768 photo dimensions, and 100k - 200k file size.

If that's not too much to ask Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Joe_Schmeaux
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 395
Location: Alberta
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2010
Re: Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Reply #6 - Jan 11th, 2013 at 12:05pm
 
This is a short set from a little over a year ago.

This map shows where Bowron is: (the teardrop with the "A" on it):
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

It's not a big park, just one 116 km circuit on the edge of the Cariboo mountain ranges. The trip is done clockwise, (see below), starting in the northwest corner. It usually takes 5 or 6 days, and has no side trip potential.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
It's unusual to be able to put together any kind of loop in the mountains, so this trip is a bit of a "must do" in this part of the country.

Today's POD is from the "north" leg. As you can see from the topo, the lakes are narrow with steep mountain slopes on both sides. So there's an echo, as this loon managed to figure out. He would call, wait for the echo, call again, wait, etc. Non stop for at least half an hour.

Let me know if you want me to continue with bla-bla to accompany (some of) the pix.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Phoenix
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 181
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Joined: Aug 13th, 2009
Re: Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Reply #7 - Jan 11th, 2013 at 4:36pm
 
Joe:

Yes, please bla-bla away! Bowron lakes has always intrigued me as a place to canoe because, as you say, it is a loop in the mountains. I'd be interested in your impressions of things like campsite cleanliness - given that it is, as I understand, a very popular circuit.

Plus any descriptions you can provide with the photos helps to put things in context.

Thanks for posting this!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
db
Web-lackey
Inukshuk
Voyageur
Offline



Posts: 5461
Location: Just off the beaten path.
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002
Re: Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Reply #8 - Jan 11th, 2013 at 8:03pm
 
There's one coming up that, auch, I'd love to have been there. A few moments later I wondered what the portages are like. Nice wheels yesterday btw! Just out of curiosity, how do they fit in the canoe? (I try not to peek these days)
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Joe_Schmeaux
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 395
Location: Alberta
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2010
Re: Picture of the day - POD (cont. 21)
Reply #9 - Jan 11th, 2013 at 11:27pm
 
OK, here's some preamble for the trip - more long-winded than I had intended (for Phoenix and db's benefit) - plus some bla-bla to go with yesterday's pic.

My trip was a bit of a spur-of-the-moment thing: (a) the 7-day weather forecast was excellent, (b) I had the time available, and (c) I figured in late September, most of the crowds would be gone. I might never get (a), (b) and (c) together like this again, so I'd better pack some food, throw the canoe on the roof of the car and just go.

Sometimes things actually do work out the way you planned.

The weather turned out incredible - warm with blue skies every day. That is not normal for this part of B.C. : the Bowron area gets a lot of rain, and the weather aspect of this series of PODs is not at all representative of typical conditions.

Bowron is a *very* popular trip. There is a quota which gets filled up during the summer, something like 25 people per day going in. So 25 times 5 days divided by the number of red dots on the topo map and you can figure on having to share your campsite most nights. But even with the great weather, my entry day had only 10-15 people, and I had a campsite to myself for each of my five nights. If you go, especially in summer, don't expect this.

Like I said, Bowron gets a lot of traffic, and a lot of noob traffic. As wilderness, it definitely falls into the "heavily managed" category, so things are done a bit differently from what you might be used to in Quetico.

The park's management has been outsourced by the B.C. government to a private contractor, so if you go looking for a "BC Parks" website for Bowron, there is none. Here is the main site for Bowron:
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
IMO, the private contractor does an excellent job: the staff are competent, and seem to really care about taking care of the wilderness.

You start off at the visitor centre with a mandatory orientation talk (8 am and 1 pm) and bear safety film. Bowron is grizzly country, so the stakes are higher than out east where you only have those wussy black bears. (Re bear safety, I can't believe some of the stuff I read on QJ: taking peanut butter into the backcountry? ghee? wtf?) Anyhow, the film includes some footage of a bear taking down a tent. Whether staged or not, it was exactly the way I had seen it done for real in Banff some years earlier (belly flop method).

Next you have a weigh-in (Bowron portages have a maximum GVW per axle just like roads). You then get your permit specifying which of your packs are allowed to be in the canoe on the cart on the portages, and more-or-less en masse you and the rest of the daily entry quota of canoeists are on your way.

OK, so about yesterday's POD. There are seven portages total on the circuit, five of which are in the one to three km range. The portages are all wide and not too steep, something you could probably drive a golf cart on in dry weather. So some 80% of visitors use "canoe carts". These are basically collapsible dollies made of two bicycle wheels, some steel tubing and a cradle, and cost $50 or so to rent for the trip. I figured why not. (Note: if renting, you need to get your cart from a local outfitter before you arrive at the park visitor centre. I used Becker's, and had no problems).

Continued tomorrow.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

 
  « The Put-In ‹ Board  ^Top