Caedes

Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc.

Discussion Board -> Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc. -> high resolution

high resolution

yankeedam
01/09/09 5:15 AM GMT
Most good cameras put out photos 3000 to 4000 pixels wide, but everything I see here is way less. My monitor is 3840 wide (2400 high), and it's hard to find any picture that big unless I take it myself. Can you please allow this size upload, and if you do, give us big-screen fan(atic)s a search tool to root them out? Thanks.
0∈ [?]

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
&mimi
01/09/09 5:26 AM GMT
Hi.
First of all, the uploaded size here is limited to less than 10mp and 3000x3000.
Second, when you go to the new image page, at the top left there is a box that says 'all images'. that is a drop down box and you can choose which size images you would like to view.
"All images" is the default view.
Also, many artists do not upload in the very large sizes due to the fact that even though all images are copyrighted on caedes.net, piracy and ripping is quite prevalent. Our artists works have been and are ripped and sold as prints sadly enough.
This does not happen when uploaded at smaller resolutions. Hope this helps :=)
0∈ [?]
~mimi~
.J_272004
01/09/09 5:46 AM GMT
Maybe if you contact the artist they may be able to enlarge it and email it to you.
0∈ [?]
MY GALLERY ........... "You are not alive unless you know you are living." Amadeo Modigliani
::Foxfire66
01/09/09 3:43 PM GMT
Just curious....
You've been a member since o6. How come you don't share some of your photography?
0∈ [?]
yankeedam
01/10/09 2:21 AM GMT
to &Mimi: That "all images" box does not refer to size, only to shape. And a typical "wide" image offers a max resolution of around 1600x1200, often less. How can we find the rare 3000-wide photo? (and if the limit is 3000x3000, the pixel limit is 9Mp, not 10) to Fixfire66: My stuff is posed family shots, or related to work (like construction details, flood conditions, how-to shots -- i.e., boring. I don't travel. I do appreciate the artistic work I see here, however. And why, Ff66, does this group have a name which means ( in Latin) slaughtering or sacrificing people?
0∈ [?]
&mimi
01/10/09 3:27 AM GMT
yankeedam... you will need to check with the site administrator see here regarding the naming of the site.

Sorry for stating the obvious errors that you pointed out.
0∈ [?]
~mimi~
&purmusic
01/10/09 7:10 AM GMT
"How can we find the rare 3000-wide photo?"

A number of members have posted panoramics. And in some rare instances, specifically for a three display/monitor setup.

I shall try to root some of the authors out for you.

In the meantime, have a look through Photography ... upper left menus, both the 'permanent' and 'new images' galleries for yourself. With respect to the resolution size(s) you are seeking you might have some succcess there.
0∈ [?]
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi
+philcUK
01/10/09 1:39 PM GMT
you have also to remember that to put out the quality images you want at that size the camera would have to be between 12 and 15MP which doesnt really cover the 'most' aspect especially seeing as unless you plum for a really high end DSLR - the extra MP's will probably produce a lower quality image aesthetically than say their 10-12MP bretheren.
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
yankeedam
01/11/09 3:15 PM GMT
hi, philc -- I believe 8mp is a "typical" size these days for a $500 non-SLR camera. My Nikon 8800 puts out a 3276x2450 picture which covers most of the width of my 3840x2400 screen. Chances are, 75% of the enthusiasts who upload here have that resolution or better available to them -- but not available to Caedes within its upload self-limitation. Of course bandwidth is precious, so I suggest that for only the well-received photos, Caedes should solicit a higher-resolution version. As for image thieves, I think they will gladly steal any resolution for illegal use, and that higher resolution is not as catnippy to them as some suggest.
0∈ [?]
*caedes
01/11/09 10:17 PM GMT
I just made some changes in the development code that will allow us to accept larger images. The basic problem was that we needed a distributed image storage system in order to expand much past the storage space that we currently use for images. I hope to be able to launch this on the main site quickly.
0∈ [?]
-caedes
+philcUK
01/12/09 5:43 AM GMT
sorry I was referring to your 4000 pixel wide comment - not the screen resolution and you have to take into account also that unless you fire off a perfect shot, cropping and rotation etc will also bite into that size, hence the requirement for more image area than you would ultimately need.
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
::Foxfire66
01/14/09 4:52 AM GMT
Honestly?

I upload my images here, for people to use as "wallpaper" on their computers...if they happen to like something I create.

To post my Photography and creations in the High Rez, you happen to use as your desktop wallpaper, allows for alot easier chance of those images being ripped. Simple as that. High Rez Images...If they're worth a crap...are prized rips. Alot of people here, sell their creations, Photography and artwork.
Why post Here for free, what you're trying to sell?

I personally run a 1280 X 768 Desktop resolution on a 24" monitor.

I've looked at my own images...In the resolution you run...on my own computer set to your resolution, and....I can't see a difference in the Quality of the Image. There isn't any. The Icons are a heck of alot smaller though! :-)

No. I'll continue to upload my Images in the lower Rez format. AND...if anyone wants the higher Rez version....PM me, I'll be happy to. :-)

0∈ [?]
=ppigeon
01/17/09 12:46 AM GMT
What's the use of large images? Printing?
I got a new Samsung T220 screen (wonderful!) and the resolution is only 1680x1050...
0∈ [?]
-Pierre-
::peapodgrrl
05/05/09 10:29 AM GMT
Foxfire66:
The sad truth is, anyone who has a modicum of enlarging knowledge can take your desktop wallpaper images and enlarge them and make them printing-ready. High res or not, there's enough data there to work with. I wouldn't post anything online (without a big fat ugly watermark on it and no more than 500 pixels) that was an important piece of work to me, ie, something I did not want stolen. Because make no mistake--it will be.

Peapodgrrl
0∈ [?]
+regmar
05/08/09 2:34 PM GMT
Peapodgrrl, the enlarged images won't print well. As one who prints his images as large as I possibly can I can assure you that an image that's enlarged to print on a larger size will look like it was enlarged. Fine details will become pixelated or just blur out if the user uses a pixel extrapolation algorithm.

At 1600x1200 the images are well protected against ripping for re-sale. You can realistically only enlarge about 10%-15% before quality degrades. Remember we're not too concerned about people being able to print 5"x7"s of our work, but very few 1600x1200 images will look good enlarged to fit 8"x10".

No, I agree with Foxfire66. I keep my image resolution at or below 1600x1200, so people won't be able to easily rip and print my images.
0∈ [?]
ж Regmar ж

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: