Aspect ratio
-
When taking pictures, etc...and then making thumbnails out of them... Does anyone happen to know what is considered by most, an ideal aspect ratio for a photorealistic image? Most thumbnails I see on places like eBay, etc often look nasty & pixelated from poor AR calculation to resizing techniques... Just curious? Cheers :)
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
Hockey wrote:
an ideal aspect ratio for a photorealistic image?
the same aspect ratio as the scene it was taken in. Seriously. If you take a panorama image and you scale it to 4:3 it looks squashed. If you take a digital camera image it is "usually" in the form of 35mm aspect, or 3:2. If you scale that to 4:3 again it looks squashed. So cut out a 4:3 image from within your 3:2 digital camera image, and then upload it for resizing, and it looks much better.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
When taking pictures, etc...and then making thumbnails out of them... Does anyone happen to know what is considered by most, an ideal aspect ratio for a photorealistic image? Most thumbnails I see on places like eBay, etc often look nasty & pixelated from poor AR calculation to resizing techniques... Just curious? Cheers :)
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
I think it would depend on the aspect ratio of the initial photo. I think this is typically 4:3. Usually when I resize, I either go by percentage and let the software calculate Width and Height, or select keep aspect ratio and define either W or H.
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
Hockey wrote:
an ideal aspect ratio for a photorealistic image?
the same aspect ratio as the scene it was taken in. Seriously. If you take a panorama image and you scale it to 4:3 it looks squashed. If you take a digital camera image it is "usually" in the form of 35mm aspect, or 3:2. If you scale that to 4:3 again it looks squashed. So cut out a 4:3 image from within your 3:2 digital camera image, and then upload it for resizing, and it looks much better.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
the same aspect ratio as the scene it was taken in. Seriously. If you take a panorama image and you scale it to 4:3 it looks squashed.
Correct, but that would be a stretch not a scale. You should almost never stretch an image, particularly a photo, because it will always look horrible. I think this is a problem with some crappy software painting an image into a predefined rectangle, without regard to the aspect of the image it has loaded. That would be a no-no. Although to be fair - it's not always made easy. If you look at System.Drawing.Graphics.DrawImage, for instance, it doesn't really allow you to maintain aspect - you have to do that yourself. J
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
the same aspect ratio as the scene it was taken in. Seriously. If you take a panorama image and you scale it to 4:3 it looks squashed.
Correct, but that would be a stretch not a scale. You should almost never stretch an image, particularly a photo, because it will always look horrible. I think this is a problem with some crappy software painting an image into a predefined rectangle, without regard to the aspect of the image it has loaded. That would be a no-no. Although to be fair - it's not always made easy. If you look at System.Drawing.Graphics.DrawImage, for instance, it doesn't really allow you to maintain aspect - you have to do that yourself. J
JBurkey wrote:
but that would be a stretch not a scale.
I stand corrected. :) The problem is often that you have to have previously defined rectangles. Flickr and ebay and others are designed by a third person and you are putting your images in to "their" spots defined for them. Flickr trims the image to match 4:3 but it doesn't really know "how" to trim it, so it just does it.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
When taking pictures, etc...and then making thumbnails out of them... Does anyone happen to know what is considered by most, an ideal aspect ratio for a photorealistic image? Most thumbnails I see on places like eBay, etc often look nasty & pixelated from poor AR calculation to resizing techniques... Just curious? Cheers :)
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
You don't change the aspect ratio. You scale both H&V equally. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
the same aspect ratio as the scene it was taken in. Seriously. If you take a panorama image and you scale it to 4:3 it looks squashed.
Correct, but that would be a stretch not a scale. You should almost never stretch an image, particularly a photo, because it will always look horrible. I think this is a problem with some crappy software painting an image into a predefined rectangle, without regard to the aspect of the image it has loaded. That would be a no-no. Although to be fair - it's not always made easy. If you look at System.Drawing.Graphics.DrawImage, for instance, it doesn't really allow you to maintain aspect - you have to do that yourself. J
JBurkey wrote:
Correct, but that would be a stretch not a scale.
Actually it is a scale. Nobody said anything about 'scaling' meaning 'uniform scaling along each axis'. Maintaining aspect ratio is not that difficult either:
int destinationWidth = ???;
int destinationHeight = ???;
int originalWidth = ???;
int originalHeight = ???;
double aspect = originalWidth / static_cast<double>(originalHeight);
int scaledWidth = destinationWidth;
int scaledHeight = static_cast<int>(destinationWidth / aspect);
if( scaledHeight > destinationHeight )
{
scaledHeight = destinationHeight;
scaledWidth = static_cast<int>(scaledHeight / aspect);
}This stretch prefers filling the width to the destination, rather than the height, but it's easy to swap it around.
Chris Richardson
-
When taking pictures, etc...and then making thumbnails out of them... Does anyone happen to know what is considered by most, an ideal aspect ratio for a photorealistic image? Most thumbnails I see on places like eBay, etc often look nasty & pixelated from poor AR calculation to resizing techniques... Just curious? Cheers :)
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
Hockey wrote:
Does anyone happen to know what is considered by most, an ideal aspect ratio for a photorealistic image?
the best aspect ratio is the one you need in order to best to capture your subject. look at good photographs: almost none of them conform to standard ratios.
-
When taking pictures, etc...and then making thumbnails out of them... Does anyone happen to know what is considered by most, an ideal aspect ratio for a photorealistic image? Most thumbnails I see on places like eBay, etc often look nasty & pixelated from poor AR calculation to resizing techniques... Just curious? Cheers :)
It's frustrating being a genius and living the life of a moron!!!
Retain the original aspect ratio of the image. If you have a crop 4 inches wide by 2 inches high that is a 2:1 aspect. Changing it to a 4:1 would make it look like s*
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
-
JBurkey wrote:
but that would be a stretch not a scale.
I stand corrected. :) The problem is often that you have to have previously defined rectangles. Flickr and ebay and others are designed by a third person and you are putting your images in to "their" spots defined for them. Flickr trims the image to match 4:3 but it doesn't really know "how" to trim it, so it just does it.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
On a 4:3?
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
-
On a 4:3?
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Ever watched a letterbox movie On a 4:3?
I try not to, but yes... of course, not all letterbox movies are the same size, which means anyone who has watched a letterbox movie knows the issues with either trimming to fit, or scrunching... or black/grey borders.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)