|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Point of super-high-resolution pics? |
| 1-13 of 13 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 01-05-11 09:23am - 5100 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
otoh (0)
Active User Posts: 159 Registered: Sep 17, '10 Location: UK |
Point of super-high-resolution pics? I notice that some sites now, especially some of the arty-nude sides, are offering very high resolution images, eg Hegre Art has 8000px files - which I'm obviously missing the point of. I've got a large-ish 22" monitor which is 1920px wide; even my wife's obscene 27-inch iMac is 'only' 2560px. (Alas she disapproves of smut and so I don't get to look at pics on it  )Obviously, it means you can zoom in; and see more detail; but even then, you can still only see one screenful at a time, and have to pan/scroll around it. But my view is that, if the photographer is good, they should frame accordingly, and offer a good mix of full-body shots and close-ups, giving you enough detail in eg 2000px. The only other advantage I can think of is printing, where good large-format printers can render (and you can see) about 200 dpi; allowing you to print a pin-sharp 40-inch print from 8000px. Cant see that anyone would bother though  Anyway, feel free to enlighten me on what I'm not seeing! | |
|
||
| 01-06-11 09:20am - 5099 days | #2 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
Sorry, I can't really answer your question as it's one I've pondered myself. Still, I hate to see a question not responded to at all. If I had to guess, I'd say perhaps fans of huge pics are viewing them on big-screen TV's or hope have that option to some day. But that's only a guess. If I had to pick one, I'd say Drooler might be the best one to answer as he's a big fan of HUGE pics.  If you're interested, there's an onld thread that touches on this issue. See: When is a image too big? Sorry I couldn't help more. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 01-06-11 09:49am - 5099 days | #3 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I think some of us go for the biggest stuff because one never knows what's coming down the pipe when it comes to monitors and graphics cards or graphics chips. I was, and still am to a certain extent, an avid picture collector yet I have had to throw away thousands of pictures that no longer looked good on my new monitor, yet only a few years ago 800 x 600 px were the tops. So, while I have no use for super sized pictures now, I at least know that I won't have to throw them away down the road. Khan's guess is also good. My son-in-law shows me their hi-res vacation pictures on their large LCD TV via a memory stick, and they are spectacular .. just think what one could do with a memory stick containing one's favorite porn pictures.  In the meantime it is still my wish that all picture were taken in landscape format, the models wouldn't necessarily have to be in a prone position because a little bit of extra scenery wouldn't hurt but, sadly, photographers keep sticking with Portrait, probably because less of a set is required, making the shoot cheaper. | |
|
||
| 01-06-11 12:54pm - 5099 days | #4 | |
|
otoh (0)
Active User Posts: 159 Registered: Sep 17, '10 Location: UK |
Thanks for the replies! I'd be interested to hear from Drooler as to exactly what he does with 6000px and 8000px images I see the point about futureproofing, but there is a finite limit, I think. There are very high resolution monitors now, about 4000px on around 22 inch, used for medical imaging - but I think these are approaching the limit of what you can see. Similarly for larger screens - if you have a 50" 1920x1080 TV, I doubt that given the distance you sit from it, that you'd see any more detail if it was higher resolution. I suspect that 4000px monitors will be commonplace in, say, 5 years. After that... well, maybe we'll have full-wall, 10000px projectors... all those pixels are starting to sound like a good idea And hear hear about the orientation! We don't even get to see a 2000px set because they are all portrait  | |
|
||
| 01-06-11 02:06pm - 5099 days | #5 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Regarding orientation: If a girl is standing up, portrait seems to make sense. If a girl is lying down, landscape seems to make sense. But if the girl is lying down, and you shoot her so her body is vertical to the length of the photo, that doesn't make much sense. You want to get as much of the girl into the photo as possible, normally. Why include a lot of background image instead of focusing on the girl? So the choice of portrait versus landscape depends on what you want to highlight, as well as the pose of the model. I think the normal choice is portrait, and that seems to fit most poses of models. | |
|
||
| 01-06-11 03:11pm - 5099 days | #6 | |
|
JBDICK (0)
Active User  Posts: 160 Registered: Apr 04, '08 Location: Wales, UK |
I have downloaded these on occasion but surprisingly not so I can go caving but for the face mainly. I have to agree with you that unless you have most of the body in you lose context and you are playing a game of Where's Wally or if in the USA, Where's Waldo... I remember one European model I downloaded this size on and I was slightly put off afterward because I could see lice in her eyebrows and lashes...hey ho...that might be a new artform ...Parasitic Porn...I too look forward to hearing from Drooler and others who are specialists in this area. Beautiful Girls Covered in Pearls and No Oysters in Sight | |
|
||
| 01-07-11 06:35pm - 5098 days | #7 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Anything around 2000pixels wide is plenty for me. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 01-08-11 06:33am - 5097 days | #8 | |
|
otoh (0)
Active User Posts: 159 Registered: Sep 17, '10 Location: UK |
Thanks to everyone for their replies. After all that, while figuring out the best picture viewing setup, I've gone and proved myself wrong  (at least to some degree.)Have settled on FFView - a (mac-only, sorry) viewer intended for Manga, but quite customisable, tweaked to work well with an Apple magic trackpad. Between the two on my 22" monitor I can, (wirelessly, no less) with a few swipes on the pad, move between pictures, then zoom from fitting in screen to filling the width of the screen, and panning up and down over it. I wouldn't bother if I had to scroll etc, but this is just so easy So now I have a use for pics 2000 pixels wide, even when they are portrait. Having said that, this may be a practical limit since I can't see that I'd be able to see any more detail than this, even if my monitor was higher res. | |
|
||
| 01-08-11 09:47am - 5097 days | #9 | |
|
happyending (0)
Active User Posts: 15 Registered: Aug 04, '09 Location: Mars |
Time for ATI Eyefinity Triple Monitor triple resolution | |
|
||
| 01-09-11 01:52pm - 5096 days | #10 | |
|
squirrel (0)
Active User Posts: 17 Registered: Jul 15, '08 Location: US |
You've pretty much answered your question right there. The concept is known as "cropping." You might have a full-body shot that you would KILL to have a close-up of some portion of -- and with a super-high-resolution picture, you can crop it to what you want, and still have a high-quality, high-resolution crop. Some of us actually download images and process them to get more of what we want out of them -- I crop images all the time, so I want the highest-resolution shots I can find. | |
|
||
| 01-09-11 02:11pm - 5096 days | #11 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Yeah, I'm pretty much with Squirrel on this. I get kind of creative with some of the photos I get, and I like large images because they give me enough raw material to work with. If a site has only really large-sized images, I'll reduce them to different sizes depending on how much of the girl is actually in the photo. And I'll crop some of them, too. You do have to be careful not to crop a jpg, though, unless the resulting quality loss is tolerable for you. So I convert those to tiffs before doing surgery on them. While I'd rather have 100 images at 5600 pixels than have 100 at 1200, I don't like it when sites don't include smaller sizes as well. I think a selection of 1200 and then something between 4000 and 5600 is enough. MetModels does something pretty close to that. Why some sites are going to 8000 pixels or more, I don't understand, but I won't complain. Oh, and by the way, I don't understand "the point" of videos that go up to 1920x1080, for instance, but I don't see anyone raising that question. And whatever their reasons are, it's fine by me. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. Edited on Jan 09, 2011, 02:16pm | |
|
||
| 01-09-11 03:19pm - 5096 days | #12 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
A correlated feature. I have noticed on some sites that zip file sizes have gone through a sonic boom in size very recently!  This linked with an apparently lazy attitude of just uploading all the shots means that often the size could be cut to 2/3rds or a half of the size, if they were edited properly to take out poorer & duplicate shots. Conversely, I am now downloading less. I haven't the time or inclination to sort through to find the 20% odd of the shots I actually like. ( I would like to add a note of appreciation here for those that have a custom zip function). If it continues this way, I shall have to go back to the nineties method of downloading one pic at a time. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 01-09-11 03:28pm - 5096 days | #13 | ||
|
otoh (0)
Active User Posts: 159 Registered: Sep 17, '10 Location: UK |
Aha, sure, of course having a high-res image allows you to crop in on a particularly delectable part... I've done it myself, but on the other hand, I feel in a good set, the photographer should have done it for you; give you good full body shots AND good close ups. Having said that, portrait photos are disappointing in that they use a fraction of the screen; so I have been zooming them to full width and panning up and down over them.
Where I have the choice, I've downloaded some videos in 720 and some in 1080. On my 1920x1080 monitor, it's debatable whether I can tell the difference when they both fill it... I guess I just need to watch more before I can decide | ||
|
|||
| 1-13 of 13 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
