Image quality in PH articles...
Discussion
nearly
14 said:
I can't see anything wrong the pics being posted on this thread. The only picture that is terrible is the one which Jack posted.
May I suggest https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walking-Stick-Visually-Im... ?
The picture resolutions and quality are terrible - especially on mobile where they're often just pixelated crap... It's one of the reasons I rarely bother with any 'editorial' and my bookmark goes straight to the forum - I get editorial content from other sites where the layout and picture quality is miles better. PH has always been poor at this.
Good news, everyone! Deep learning boffins can fix these crappy images...automatically!
https://dmitryulyanov.github.io/deep_image_prior
Divert some funds from the hob nob budget at PH Towers and let's get this sorted.
https://dmitryulyanov.github.io/deep_image_prior
Divert some funds from the hob nob budget at PH Towers and let's get this sorted.
B'stard Child said:
^ WHS (Firefox on IOS Mobile, Firefox on Windows 7 Laptop and Firefox on Windows 8.1 desktop
I really can't see anything wrong with them.
I just installed Firefox (W10) to check and the image resources are the same and look just as bad.I really can't see anything wrong with them.
I've blown the BT46B photo up by 300% so it's maybe clearer, are you seriously telling me you can't see the horrendous compression artifacts around the lettering?!
loudlashadjuster said:
B'stard Child said:
^ WHS (Firefox on IOS Mobile, Firefox on Windows 7 Laptop and Firefox on Windows 8.1 desktop
I really can't see anything wrong with them.
I just installed Firefox (W10) to check and the image resources are the same and look just as bad.I really can't see anything wrong with them.
I've blown the BT46B photo up by 300% so it's maybe clearer, are you seriously telling me you can't see the horrendous compression artifacts around the lettering?!
14 said:
loudlashadjuster said:
B'stard Child said:
^ WHS (Firefox on IOS Mobile, Firefox on Windows 7 Laptop and Firefox on Windows 8.1 desktop
I really can't see anything wrong with them.
I just installed Firefox (W10) to check and the image resources are the same and look just as bad.I really can't see anything wrong with them.
I've blown the BT46B photo up by 300% so it's maybe clearer, are you seriously telling me you can't see the horrendous compression artifacts around the lettering?!
14 said:
So you've zoomed in to a photo to 300% just to show the problem? I think that just says that there isn't a problem at the normal size.
No, I can plainly see it at normal resolution. I was zooming in to (hopefully) allow you to see it on whatever monitor you have.The zoomed image is a PNG so is lossless, meaning the zoom and crop wouldn't have introduced any further image degradation. If you can see it in the zoomed one then it's there in the original and it is, to anyone involved with digital imaging, shockingly bad.
loudlashadjuster said:
No, I can plainly see it at normal resolution. I was zooming in to (hopefully) allow you to see it on whatever monitor you have.
Yes. Worth mentioning that a lot depends on the screen resolution and the zoom ratio you have set. Here's 1:1 screenshot of a portion of the Mclaren article with thumbnail pic showing how poor the image is compared to browser-rendered text.This was with Chrome on a high-DPI Windows laptop... Modern web design techniques allow you to load different quality images depending on screen resolution, etc, but the real problem is that the heavy JPEG compression used is killing the quality. Maybe Haymarket can't afford the outgoing bandwidth or aren't using a CDN like Cloudflare to cache these. It's bizarre.
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff