| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
Good pictures is all I care about. Is this an algebra test? I didn't study for it.....sorry.....
|
08-04-09 12:03am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
This is a topic that really, really care about. The height of a landscape is sometimes smaller than a portrait, but since they're thumbs, it's not at all hard to make the vertical dimensions of a landscape thumb equal the height of a portrait with NO CROPPING!!!!!!!
Yeah, I said it! NO CROPPING!!!!!
I just HATE IT when landscapes are cropped to fit portrait widths in thumbnail galleries. The MyGlamourSite sites (including Sylvia Saint's) do this, and it's a pain! You have to view the entire image in "small" or "medium" size to actually see it. That's a lot of clicking, so I just wind up downloading the zip.
And they're not the only ones. So why not just make the height for all thumbs the same as the height of an uncropped (!) portrait? There ARE sites that do this. It ain't rocket science.
|
08-04-09 03:35am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
GCode (0)
|
I suppose I had no put 'Other' because I can admit that I just don't care about what thumbs look like. I just download zips anyways and I try to download everything. However, in the model index, I'd like the thumb pic of the model to be large enough to see if I may like them or not. I don't really care how it's cropped, just big enough to be seen clearly.
|
08-04-09 10:00am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
I don't care so long as I can tell what the thumbnail is supposed to be representing. Like Drooler notes, cropping seems to be occuring more and more these days. A lot of sites I've been to recently crop some or a lot of the picture which is a pain for the consumer regardless of whether you're zipping or not (why do I want to go through a zip file later if I don't know what's on it know).
|
08-04-09 11:03am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
atrapat (0)
|
First of all, thanks to the PU staff for running this poll of mine even though I was unable to put it in a less confusing way.
I'd go for resizing with the same percentage (2) even though you lose a lot of space in the page. My ideal would be cropping to squares (1) but if (and only if) there was some human hand-picking the most important part of the image and cropping to it.
Just as Drooler, the system I dislike the most is cropping landscape to portrait dimensions (3) even though I also find unpleasant when they are resized with different percentages (4): portraits always end up being too tiny.
After I submitted the poll, I came across an equally bad thumbnail system: Bangbros Network makes decent thumbnails with no cropping but resizes them all to some arbitrary landscape dimensions through the HTML code. Thumbnails of portrait pictures end up hinting the full pictures show aliens having sex.
|
08-04-09 11:05am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #5 - atrapat :
One thing I don't like about cropping is that they might crop the top of the girl's head off in the thumb, yet the full-sized image doesn't actually have that problem. This is true sometimes at mypreciousvirgins.
And their zips are colossal, sometimes over 500mb! And they come downstream pretty slowly; it can take 8-10 minutes. I don't like waiting around that long for something I'm not even sure that I want.
The bottom line for me that thumbnails should be: 1). wysiwsyg (not cropped), 2). horizontally aligned to the top and bottom of the portrait orientation, and 3). large enough to be easily viewed (200px on the long end is pretty good). That should take care of the tinyness that atrapat was talking about.
I mean, why crop at all? That's extra work that only distorts for the user what they're actually going to get! It makes NO SENSE.
Bikini Riot does that, for instance. You don't know how small or off center the girl is going to be in the frame of any particular shot until you've enlarged it or downloaded and extracted the zip.
What's more, cropping causes jpegs to loose data (and look dicier). I think the case rests.
(BTW, though I was recently critical of x-art, their thumbs are a good size!)
|
08-04-09 11:40am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
atrapat (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Drooler :
Apart from linking to the full image, thumbnails should help users decide whether they are interested in a picture or not. I agree that automatic cropping is useless for this purpose.
I've never seen it in an adult site but there's a technique that combines resizing and cropping to get a different type of thumbnails: you first crop to the significant part of an image (a human has to decide which part for each image) and then resize to the final thumbnail size. The resulting human-cropped thumbnail would make sense because it would help users choose images much better than a mere resize.
If you take the usual set at sites like Twistys, there's usually little difference between a photo and the next. It would be interesting to see this technique used to highlight those differences via the thumbnails so users would be able to tell whether the model is covering her breast or pinching her nipple; pointing at her pussy or actually fingering it; just smiling or actually licking her lips. And so on. You rarely get this level of detail with a mere resize.
In fact, if you look at the free preview galleries around the net of Twistys and similar sites, you'll see they use this technique in order to leave as little blank space in the page as possible. The ones I've seen, resize the portrait ones and use this technique for the landscape ones.
|
08-04-09 02:58pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
james4096 (Suspended)
|
When I first looked at the choices I though, what a nerdy poll. But actually cropped thumbs are a pet peeve of mine. I don't remember what site it was, but every thumbnail was badly cropped. You'd see just a torso or half an arm.
If they must crop them, make sure a human does it not a program.
|
08-04-09 03:07pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
zzzins (0)
|
There are things I care about less but...right now I just can't think of any
|
08-04-09 03:53pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #9 - zzzins :
I always love these kinds of responses.
Thanks for letting us know. ;)
|
08-04-09 05:17pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
zzzins (0)
|
REPLY TO #10 - Drooler :
hehe - OK...to be slightly more lucid:
I never look at the jpg content of a site online if I can help it. In fact - I often turn off image display in my browser to speed up pages and keep my cache nice and clean. Simply download the zips and look ath thumbnails using ACDSee. As the meercat wouldsay - "simples" (sorry - it's a UK thing)!
|
08-05-09 06:44am
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #11 - zzzins :
Well, that just goes to show that there's more than one way to shake the fruit off the tree.
|
08-05-09 01:08pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Lionheart (0)
|
I prefer the pictures in their original size
|
08-05-09 02:23pm
Reply To Message
|
