#1 May 22nd, 2005 04:39 AM

youpii

Member

Higher rez pictures ?

Hi

I'm new here
I think the content is great but I'm disappointed by the size of the pictures.
I thought they would be bigger than the samples but they are the same.
Some models seem to have 3 or more megapixels cameras why don't we see the original shots instead of resized ones ?

Gimme_Danger

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

some people in the world are still on dialup, as was I until December and some of the folios are already fairly hefty in size for those users. I have no problem with the size as they are, after all a monitor only shows pics at 72dpi

Belgareth

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

Hi

I'm new here
I think the content is great but I'm disappointed by the size of the pictures.
I thought they would be bigger than the samples but they are the same.
Some models seem to have 3 or more megapixels cameras why don't we see the original shots instead of resized ones ?

This issue has been raised before in this very forum, albeit some time ago. Big images are fine for all of us with 2Mbit connections but 30 or 40 3Mbyte images per folio for someone still suffering the performance of a 56kbit modem would probably mean that they were in need of a coffin before they finished downloading. Head was looking into providing the images with high and low resolution options but there is then the impact on the ISM pipe, so I don't know what conclusion was reached.

---

[color="Red"]require "help.pl";[/color]

zimbonies

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

Hi

I'm new here
I think the content is great but I'm disappointed by the size of the pictures.
I thought they would be bigger than the samples but they are the same.
Some models seem to have 3 or more megapixels cameras why don't we see the original shots instead of resized ones ?

First off, welcome youpii!  I hope you enjoy the fruits of our illustrious site regardless of pic size!

I'm with G_D -- My crappy 17" monitor shows the pics fine as is.  To be honest with you, I also hate to scroll to the right, left, bottom, top to see the entire picture.  I guess if I were to upgrade my vid card and get a new monitor, it would be okay, but alas, I would have to cancel my subscription to ISM to pay for all the upgrades! 

Lastly, I hope you stick around!  You won't be disappointed!

Zim

---

"Look at da Chort?!  He's gone mad wit power!"

voyeur2

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

Yup, sad but true.  I am on a dial up connection.  I live waay out in the country and that is all I can get.  I used to own half of an ISP and surfed on the fibre optic backbone.  Even now about half of web connections are on dial up; world wide - and remember this is a worldwide site.  So - keep right on as it is, higher rez still doesn't make it real.  And the best connection I can get is 44.5, and on cold days it drops to 22.  22 is a pain, but with hi rez even 56k would be slower than 22 time wize what with the huge increase in data to transfer.  And have pity on head - they pay by the bite for the downloads we get .  A big bite off hthe bottom line.

---

Have I ever lied to you before?

oakmist

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

Super high rez is a kind of magic -- those huge spillover pictures can be momentary erotic safaris, a fabulous new art form, and if ISM provided this pleasure it would be the best site on the internet. Your sets are much more exciting and fresh than METart, for example -- but METart has that wonderful feverish super high rez.
What's the problem? You'll still offer medium rez for the dial-up folks. Why deny the rest of us?

Belgareth

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

Super high rez is a kind of magic -- those huge spillover pictures can be momentary erotic safaris, a fabulous new art form, and if ISM provided this pleasure it would be the best site on the internet. Your sets are much more exciting and fresh than METart, for example -- but METart has that wonderful feverish super high rez.
What's the problem? You'll still offer medium rez for the dial-up folks. Why deny the rest of us?

I would also like to see higher resolution images but to serve both the current and high res images there is still the problem of the massive increase in bandwidth at the server end to overcome. I don't know what bandwidth ISM have available, or what it costs them, but considering the extremely low membership fees I am happy to stick with what we have.

---

[color="Red"]require "help.pl";[/color]

zimbonies

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

I would also like to see higher resolution images but to serve both the current and high res images there is still the problem of the massive increase in bandwidth at the server end to overcome. I don't know what bandwidth ISM have available, or what it costs them, but considering the extremely low membership fees I am happy to stick with what we have.

I'm with you Belgareth -- maybe Head & Co can offer higher res to those who want it for more ching.  I for one am happy with the way things are now....at the current reasonable price.

Zim

---

"Look at da Chort?!  He's gone mad wit power!"

Manring

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

I'm good with the 1024x768 sized images.

Plenty fine on my screen (still have to scroll slightly to see the whole thing on my laptop) and more than adequate for all but the largest monitors. A lot of the closer shots are larger than life as is, and having even bigger twats and nipples is only going to alter realistic expectations for those that get most of their female viewing pleasures online.

To have even larger images would be, for me, an "Oh my gawd . . . it's a giant snatch attack!" scenario and would change the way I pose and photograph my models. "Umm, honey, have you shrunk or something? You change your diet?"

I wouldn't offer the high res just for the very few who seem to want it. Especially with all the bandwidth vampires out there that grab urls and hotlink images elsewhere. I've been fighting that for ages with my own sites.

Manring

youpii

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

I understand the bandwidth concerns.
What about spicing up the pick of the week by offering it one more time with higher rez ?

SCSIgirl

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

Hi

I'm new here
I think the content is great but I'm disappointed by the size of the pictures.
I thought they would be bigger than the samples but they are the same.
Some models seem to have 3 or more megapixels cameras why don't we see the original shots instead of resized ones ?

OK.  Here comes Mr Practical again.  Since the current resolution of ISM pics far exceeds your monitor,  there are only 2 reasons you would want more rez.

1) You want to print out the pics.  However, since the printed page can not match the contrast ratio or color depth of the monitor,  any print is going to be less dazzeling.  So unless you want to paper your walls with Issy,  prints are going to be underwhelming.

2)  You want higher rez so you can +key (zoom in) on body parts with less noise and pixel break-up.  As a photographer,  I well aware that there are many "pictures within the picture".  But when you zoom in on another artists picture,  are you defeating the image that the artist wanted to portray?  Are you looking for raw sexuality rather than personality?  Maybe the model doesn't want you to see the razor burn that closely.

Personally,  pussies are a dime a dozen.  I can see them anywhere.  The medical journals are loaded.  It's personality that makes a woman sexy.  You can go through the newsgroups and get lots of free pics.  You can say "that girl LOOKs sexy",  but if she's a total air head,  is she really sexy?  I'm getting off-thread here,  but ISM's combination of profiles, forums, and portfolios give us insight to personality of the models.  I don't need to zoom in on the mons.  The pic,  as it is presented, tells me more about the model.  That way she makes herself sexy.  That way she appeals to you or she doesn't.

---

"Apple of my Eye", "bated breath", "brave new world", "caught red-handed" - all coined by Shakespeare.

Belgareth

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

OK.  Here comes Mr Practical again.  Since the current resolution of ISM pics far exceeds your monitor,  there are only 2 reasons you would want more rez.

1) You want to print out the pics.  However, since the printed page can not match the contrast ratio or color depth of the monitor,  any print is going to be less dazzeling.  So unless you want to paper your walls with Issy,  prints are going to be underwhelming.

2)  You want higher rez so you can +key (zoom in) on body parts with less noise and pixel break-up.  As a photographer,  I well aware that there are many "pictures within the picture".  But when you zoom in on another artists picture,  are you defeating the image that the artist wanted to portray?  Are you looking for raw sexuality rather than personality?  Maybe the model doesn't want you to see the razor burn that closely.

Personally,  pussies are a dime a dozen.  I can see them anywhere.  The medical journals are loaded.  It's personality that makes a woman sexy.  You can go through the newsgroups and get lots of free pics.  You can say "that girl LOOKs sexy",  but if she's a total air head,  is she really sexy?  I'm getting off-thread here,  but ISM's combination of profiles, forums, and portfolios give us insight to personality of the models.  I don't need to zoom in on the mons.  The pic,  as it is presented, tells me more about the model.  That way she makes herself sexy.  That way she appeals to you or she doesn't.

There may be other reasons for some members wanting higher resolution images but I'm damned if I can thing of any.

The images on ISM only fill about one fifth of my screen but I have not yet had any inclination to download the images to disc and view them in my GNU image manipulation package (GIMP). Why should I want to do so? The ladies look fine just as they are!

In any case with 4/5 of my screen available I can post to the forum, watch an ISM video and have my favorite pic of the day all visible together. If that isn't already running close to overdosing on ISM, I don't know what is! I don't even adulterate that screen with anything else - the other stuff sits on diferent virtual windows.

---

[color="Red"]require "help.pl";[/color]

voyeur2

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

Yup, sad but true.   higher rez still doesn't make it real.

I think the real problem behind the desire for higher rez is that what they really want is the real deal.  It is just not available in a virtual universe.  If you want real naked (or nude) looks at females, brush up on your social skills or take an art class.

Rant rant rant.

It is an art site, the images are intended to be seen as shot and as presented in the resolution offered.

The best screens have - what?21 pixels per centimeter?  Help me out on this one Scott.

The resolution is a screen thing anyway.  Weakest link.

Fine grain 400 speed 35mm film, blow it up enough, it gets pretty coarse.  Same principle at work here.

---

Have I ever lied to you before?

trebora

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

I think the real problem behind the desire for higher rez is that what they really want is the real deal.  It is just not available in a virtual universe.  If you want real naked (or nude) looks at females, brush up on your social skills or take an art class.

Rant rant rant.

It is an art site, the images are intended to be seen as shot and as presented in the resolution offered.

The best screens have - what?21 pixels per centimeter?  Help me out on this one Scott.

The resolution is a screen thing anyway.  Weakest link.

Fine grain 400 speed 35mm film, blow it up enough, it gets pretty coarse.  Same principle at work here.

I learned someting new today.  Did a search for monitor pixels per centimeter and here's some stuff I found.

Pixels per inch (ppi) is the measure of the sharpness (that is, the density of illuminated points) on a display screen. The dot pitch on a particular monitor determines the absolute limit of the possible pixels per inch. However, the displayed resolution of pixel (picture elements) that is set up for the display is usually not as fine as the dot pitch.

I also read that supposedly a .25 dot pitch monitor would have a pixels per inch squared of aprox 10000 (1600 ppc2)...so the square root of that would be 100 dpi (or 40 dpc )...hmm that actually makes more sense now.

A 3 megapixel image would be aprox 2048X1536  If your display is set to that more power too ya and I bow to your geekness.  (now I'm daydreaming about a display that big, it may be time for another of those long hot showers)

Thats actually twice what my desktop is set to and I'd imagine that most people are at about the same display resolution.

my 2 cents is without a serious need by the majority to go that large the downsides from larger file sizes and increased pipe aren't worth it.

---

---
One by one, the penguins slowly steal my sanity
---

SCSIgirl

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

There may be other reasons for some members wanting higher resolution images but I'm damned if I can thing of any.
If that isn't already running close to overdosing on ISM, I don't know what is! I don't even adulterate that screen with anything else - the other stuff sits on diferent virtual windows.

Carefull....  you might get estrogen poisioning!!!!  ;-}  I hear there's no cure.....

---

"Apple of my Eye", "bated breath", "brave new world", "caught red-handed" - all coined by Shakespeare.

Belgareth

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

I learned someting new today.  Did a search for monitor pixels per centimeter and here's some stuff I found.

Pixels per inch (ppi) is the measure of the sharpness (that is, the density of illuminated points) on a display screen. The dot pitch on a particular monitor determines the absolute limit of the possible pixels per inch. However, the displayed resolution of pixel (picture elements) that is set up for the display is usually not as fine as the dot pitch.

I also read that supposedly a .25 dot pitch monitor would have a pixels per inch squared of aprox 10000 (1600 ppc2)...so the square root of that would be 100 dpi (or 40 dpc )...hmm that actually makes more sense now.

A 3 megapixel image would be aprox 2048X1536  If your display is set to that more power too ya and I bow to your geekness.  (now I'm daydreaming about a display that big, it may be time for another of those long hot showers)

Thats actually twice what my desktop is set to and I'd imagine that most people are at about the same display resolution.

my 2 cents is without a serious need by the majority to go that large the downsides from larger file sizes and increased pipe aren't worth it.

Your "techie" stuff just about sums it up. Most monitors, including mine, will not display a 50M professional digital image at 100%.

I happen to have a (rather) large monitor but that's because I do a fair bit of hig res image editing and not because I want some lady's nipple 600 cm in diameter!!!

---

[color="Red"]require "help.pl";[/color]

darkghost

Member

Re: Higher rez pictures ?

Hi, new user here too.

Ok higher rez pictures would be fine for me too. Got a big 23" widescreen and planning to get a better one in september; connection is fine at 10M. But...then again... there are also other peoples.
Most here are still on 56k and big monitors are used by professionals or enthousiasts (I'm in the second range, geek for fun

So a possible solution coul be: any girl posting could pick a couple of shots she likes most and choose to have them at higher rez. Or users could vote to have a couple per set at high rez.
I'm photographer for hobby, thought I do mostly landscapes, and some pictures are really nice and would deserve higher rez.
Yet I don't know what the problem of the bandwith would be for ISM, even if a couple of pics per set shouldn't be a big problem.

What do you think about this ?

Ciao from Italy, where history meets genius and give birth to fools :-D