Another sharpening question

beardedgit

In Gallery Settings > Sharpening there's a note that says "These settings only apply to display copies."

Does "display copies" include photos used as background images on SM?

I followed the link to the Display Quality help page but didn't find the answer there.

mbonocore

beardedgit wrote: »

In Gallery Settings > Sharpening there's a note that says "These settings only apply to display copies."

Does "display copies" include photos used as background images on SM?

I followed the link to the Display Quality help page but didn't find the answer there.

Yes, display copy, meaning any copy we make besides the original. X3 being one of them

beardedgit

mbonocore wrote: »

Yes, display copy, meaning any copy we make besides the original. X3 being one of them

So are all background images X3? What if the original is smaller than the page?

Andy

beardedgit wrote: »

So are all background images X3? What if the original is smaller than the page?

Bearded, *any* display copy. No matter what size.

mbonocore

Exactly, A display copy is just that. Whatever we are displaying on the screen.

beardedgit

Andy wrote: »

Bearded, *any* display copy. No matter what size.

mbonocore wrote: »

Exactly, A display copy is just that. Whatever we are displaying on the screen.

Yup, that's clearer now, if original is displayed it's sharpened, thanks guys

Now I'm off to make a coherent plan for getting rid of the sharpening on my astro pics already onsite.

Looks like I'll be dizzy after all that rotating and saving

Jtring

beardedgit wrote: »

...
Now I'm off to make a coherent plan for getting rid of the sharpening on my astro pics already onsite ...

I'm not sure all the discussion here is fully consistent with SM's page on sharpening:

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93250-what-are-the-smugmug-display-sizes-

The discussion there is all about down-sampling so as to have the (presumed smaller) display copies match the sharpness of the original. At the very least a few judicious trials to see how the Lanczos algorithm is implemented in a up-sampling case would seem to be in order before doing anything wholesale. I, BTW, have no experience in that case and would be interested in what you see.

Jim Ringland

beardedgit

Jtring wrote: »

I'm not sure all the discussion here is fully consistent with SM's page on sharpening:

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93250-what-are-the-smugmug-display-sizes-

The discussion there is all about down-sampling so as to have the (presumed smaller) display copies match the sharpness of the original. At the very least a few judicious trials to see how the Lanczos algorithm is implemented in a up-sampling case would seem to be in order before doing anything wholesale. I, BTW, have no experience in that case and would be interested in what you see.

Jim Ringland

Indeed, that's why I queried the scenario when the original is smaller than the page. That would need up-sampling if used as a background set to fill or fit. Sharpening an up-sampled image with the Lanczos algorithm isn't going to give a good result.

I think I'll hold off any changes until this is clarified/confirmed.

beardedgit

Andy wrote: »

Bearded, *any* display copy. No matter what size.

mbonocore wrote: »

Exactly, A display copy is just that. Whatever we are displaying on the screen.

Sorry to bring this up again, but do those responses still hold true for animated gifs, like those that I'm showing on my homepage? They are display copies, so they fall within your "*any* display copy" and "Whatever we are displaying on the screen" criteria, yet they sure as Hell don't look sharpened to me.

rainforest1155

beardedgit wrote: »

Sorry to bring this up again, but do those responses still hold true for animated gifs, like those that I'm showing on my homepage? They are display copies, so they fall within your "*any* display copy" and "Whatever we are displaying on the screen" criteria, yet they sure as Hell don't look sharpened to me.

I can neither confirm nor deny whether we sharpen gif display copies or not, but the format isn't very efficient and is not really intended for photos of decent quality or size. The purpose of animated gifs is for use on small icons or animations of at most a few hundred pixels in width / height. For anything else, the file size usually goes up a lot depending on the kind of animation.

To give you an example from your homepage, the panorama gif you have at the top, is 32MB in file size. Depending on the browser window and screen size, the size of that panorama varies, but even from a mobile device, I was still served up an 8MB animated gif just for that one image. That's a lot for one page load if you're on a data plan and it may slow down page loading for your visitors.

Keep in mind, those file sizes are just for the one image and don't take into account any of your other images, some of which are huge as well.

beardedgit

Thanks again, Sebastian