administrator
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon May 17, 1999 5:11 am

Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:01 pm

Hey guys,

I've made a small change to photo database. It's nothing much but effects all photos on Airliners.net.

Check the photo database and see if you can notice it...

Screeners may not participate Big grin


Cheers,
Johan
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:05 pm

Sneaky. I can't remember what the old page looked like.

Looks like a little dot box around the image ?
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:08 pm

Doesn't seem to have helped my Hit ratio  Wink/being sarcastic
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:12 pm

Maybe it is the copyright Glenn Alderton (insert actual Photographer)

Was that there before
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:15 pm

Or am I in the wrong area and now it is the number of hits per average on photo at the top and working its way down to the lowest etc.
 
administrator
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon May 17, 1999 5:11 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:18 pm

You're not very close I'm afraid. Keep trying though  Big grin

/ Johan
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:26 pm

Strewth

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
174thfwff
Posts: 2831
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:47 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:27 pm

I KNOW!!!!

At the bottom of the webpage it says copiewright ....

At the bottom of http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=177185


Photo Copyright © Andrew Hunt, all rights reserved. More info.

This page is a part of Airliners.net
Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Staten, Uptown, what now? Lets make it happen.
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:27 pm

Is it something we can see or is it hidden like an imbedded watermark
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:28 pm

Nah I said that
 
bodobodo
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed May 03, 2000 6:43 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:32 pm

Ok, I'll take a stab at this. I'll take 3 guesses with the most likely first.

1)Better quality thumbnails? I'm probably imagining it but perhaps the colours or resamling of the thumbnails better represents the originals?

2)Something else about the thumbnails, possibly the framing of them?

3)Nothing is different and this is a experiment that you are doing for a psychology class?

Time to get some sleep.

Cheers,
Felix
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:35 pm

OH No psyched outt again.

But lets see who doesn't post and suspect them of screeners status  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Nothing lost then  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
iflycoach
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 1:37 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:36 pm

Were you able to see the whole explenation of the photo on the thumbnail page before?
 
174thfwff
Posts: 2831
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:47 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:45 pm

2 more shots...

here is one of them...

the photo id and views is above the thumbnail?
Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Staten, Uptown, what now? Lets make it happen.
 
BO__einG
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 5:20 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:45 pm

I see nothing at all..

Absolutely no change!!

Even the queue lines are no change.. harharhar..
jk--

Bo
Follow @kimbo_snaps on Instagram or bokimon- on Flickr to see more pics of me and my travels.
 
iflycoach
Posts: 973
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 1:37 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:50 pm

I have to agree with the views on the thumbnails, I never remember those.
 
WillL
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun May 20, 2001 2:39 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 12:59 pm

I think the thumbnails have been sharpend
 
Dazed767
Posts: 4967
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:55 am

I Think I've Got It...

Thu Jul 26, 2001 1:08 pm

"Send as a postcard" tab under the comment part of the photo (on the big version), and under the thumbnail on the regular page.

Justin
 
thomasphoto60
Posts: 3712
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:04 pm

RE: I Think I've Got It...

Thu Jul 26, 2001 1:37 pm

I don't know about that Dazed.

I am inclined to agree with post saying that the tumbnails have been improved. For instance, I have a shot of a CO 757 landing, while the shot is excellent in as far as the image quality is concerned, but the thumbnail had always looked, well.....crappy! Now there is a noticiable diffrence with this thumbnail.

Thomas
"Show me the Braniffs"
 
Guest

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 1:53 pm

Seems that the thumbnails are in .JPG format now, instead of .GIF, which has significantly improved the quality.

Good job Johan.  Smile

Chris
 
Guest

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 1:55 pm

More compression on the thumbnails and possibly the full size photos?
 
c72
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:19 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 1:58 pm

is it the link for "distinct" views...little pop up if you click distinct???
 
Cathay111
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:21 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 2:51 pm

It's the thumbnails, for sure! As soon as I opened the page the photos jumped out at me in a very clear manner now and not in the dull and dotty way that they did before!

CM
 
AIRCANON
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2000 10:58 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 3:00 pm

We´ve got it!!!

It´s the thumbnails. They used to be gif´s now they are jpeg´s and therefore a better quality.

Guess there are quite a few winners on this quiz. We´ll have to split the prize! Wat was it? hehe Big grin

uuuhhh... What am i doing here? It´s late... have to get to work!  Smokin cool

Edwin (AirCanon)
 
PUnmuth@VIE
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 3:02 pm

The thumbnails have changed from GIF to JPG.
See the difference
JPG:

GIF:

Speaking for myself i dont see a difference in the thumbnails, but the amount of diskspace saved is a huuuuuge one. The gif is 17526 Bytes in size and the jpg is only 4963 Bytes in size. So lets calculate:
170000 photos in the database. Lets assume around 10000 Bytes are saved when storing the thumbnails as jpg.s. That equals in a saved disk space of about 1.700.000.000 (Read 1,7 Gigabytes).

By the way. Does this mean the gif are going to disappear very soon? I tried to do the same with my latest uploads, but the gif was not available, its only on the system for older uploads.
Peter
-
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 3:10 pm

Whatever it is, on the main search page (front page of Airliners.net) I can't search for a special airline anymore.

Is it that, Johan? (I hope not.....)

Regards
Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 3:12 pm

.... and after a reload, it works again. Thanks, my little computer, for fooling me. Ignore my previous post, folks. Sorry!!

Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
 
Guest

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 3:39 pm

Glenn,

Don't you have stuff to do other than hanging out in the forum?



ADG
 
Davus
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 9:31 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:37 pm

Definately.............

The thumbnails used to be an interlaces gif format......meaning they slowly 'fade in'.....

now they are a progressive jpeg. Meaning they are exactly the same as the larger versions..........just smalled !! (hence not actually making them exactly the same :P)

file size is smaller and better quality.

well done johan

Dave Faulkner
Melbourne
Australia
 
Sasha
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:56 pm

I thought thumbnails were always JPGs... Maybe images started loading faster due to new compression scripts?
An2/24/28,Yak42,Tu154/134,IL18/62/96,B737/757/767,A310/320/319,F100,BAe146,EMB-145,CRJ,A340-600,B747-400,A-330-300,A-340
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:58 pm

Download times of the thumbnails are MUCH faster. Now I can modify my normal number of thumbnails per page to 120 without timing out. Quality is better too.

Good job, Johan.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:00 pm

Wow, my thumbnails are looking MUCH better (something like the actual picture now). I had noticed in the past that some people's thumbnails looked quite good, while others like mine were very muddy. Not sure what the critical difference in the original was - anyway, now everyone's look good though some will see more improvement than others.

Cheers,

Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 8:09 pm

haha me too Charles!

I used to have to do it 15 per page on my 56k connection, now i can do alot more at once  Smile

Thanks alot Johan!

Cheers

Dan
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 8:13 pm

How about the advanced search? I don't know how long it has been like this but it is sooooo much easier and a hell of alot better!

Cheers

Dan
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 8:36 pm

What's your problem ADG

Can't I hang out where I like

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
Sonic99
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 8:39 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Thu Jul 26, 2001 11:44 pm


Something's been done with the pics, that's for sure. Downloads are much faster and the pics seem sharper.

Sonic99
 
administrator
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon May 17, 1999 5:11 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Fri Jul 27, 2001 5:06 am

Well, that was a bit more difficult than I anticipated. The first really close guess was by Bodobodo who noticed a slight increase in thumbnail quality. Then WillL and Thomasphoto60 noted similar experiences when finally ChrisKSDF nailed it.

The thumbnail version of all photos have been in the GIF format since the beginning of Airliners.net. Last night, after two days of running the transfer script, thumbnails in JPEG format had finally been made and I were able to update the database pages to link to the JPEG files instead of the GIF files.

What's the point of this then you might ask. Well, first:









Notice the difference? The first file is a JPEG file and the second one (to the right) is a GIF file. The JPEG is generally of much higher quality than GIF.

You should be able to see a clear difference between those pairs. If you don't, you might use ancient or poorly configured hardware (like graphics card and monitor) that can only display 256 colors on your screen. Airliners.net will work great with such settings but you won't experience the photos in full true colors. And forget about trying to upload photos with a 256 color display.

Anyway, the second reason for moving to the JPEG format is size. The JPEG file of the MD-80 in sunset is 3092 bytes and the GIF version is on 15227 bytes. That makes the GIF file close to five times bigger! (about three times bigger is normal though). Using JPEG, pages will load faster and we'll use up less of our limited bandwidth.

The JPEG thumbnail files are saved with a compression of 37 (100 being top quality and biggest file size). Using this compression, there might be cases where GIF files actually look better than the JPEG version although I have yet to find one. PUnmuth@VIE's example above is close. The difference is hardly visible though. If anyone have thoughts on this issue and think we should increase the JPEG quality, please don't hesitate to let me know. If you have examples of files that have decreased in quality since the change to JPEG, please post them here. During a transition period, both JPEG and GIF versions of the thumbnails are located in the /small/ directory.

Regards,
Johan
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
 
Sonic99
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 8:39 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Fri Jul 27, 2001 5:15 am


Johan,

The search result pages and new additions pages load up much faster than before (heck this applies to all pages with thumbnails).

From what I've seen thus far I'd say stick with the JPEGs. Reduces download wait times and increases quality.

Keep up the great work!

Sonic99
 
henryjr
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 04, 2000 9:35 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Fri Jul 27, 2001 5:16 am

Thanks Johan!

Really great improvement. I have seen just better thumbnails so far!

This site is getting better and better everyday!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Regards,

Henry Jr Godding
 
Blackened
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 4:19 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Fri Jul 27, 2001 5:32 am

I noticed it cause I'm running the PC at 16bit right now so you can see the borders between the colors in the jpg picture. The old gifs didn't have that. But congratulations anyway. I think it's faster and they're obviously of a better quality. Sometimes there seemed to be many little dots on the small gif. This is now gone if you look at the sunset picture.
Bring it back, bring it back, bring it back
 
BO__einG
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 5:20 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Fri Jul 27, 2001 5:54 am

Look at Examples:

Air Canada Thumbnails.. What when the maple leaf used to be a big red blob for some pictures. as I recall.
This Jpeg certainly fixed that problem..

Bo
Follow @kimbo_snaps on Instagram or bokimon- on Flickr to see more pics of me and my travels.
 
nscaler
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 2:00 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Fri Jul 27, 2001 12:53 pm

Johan,

Glad that you have implemented the jpg instead of the gif into the database. However, I have noticed especially with photos showing a lot of blue sky, that the jpeg compression may be a little too much.

For example, on my system, the gif of this image is much better:

GIF:


JPEG:


GIF:


JPEG:


I think this can simply be contributed to the jpeg compression.

Your opinion, Johan?

Much thanks,

Saul
 
Blackened
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 4:19 am

Nscaler Try 32bit

Fri Jul 27, 2001 8:27 pm

What you mean is not the jpg compression: It's your screen setting. Try 32bit and both pictures will look more or less the same. If you're running at 16bit you don't have enough colors so you will see a border between two colors because they're too much different from each other. If you had 32bit there would be a smooth transition from one color to the other. Complicated to explain but easy to see. You can also try 24bit if you don't have 32bit. This has nothing to do with jpeg compression in this case. The compression is OK.
Bring it back, bring it back, bring it back
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Fri Jul 27, 2001 9:01 pm

As I recall, JPEG only supports up to 24-bit color, so more than that will be overkill (on this site anyway). But you are right Blackened, if you are at 16-bit you will certainly see some odd dithering.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Sonic99
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 8:39 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Sat Jul 28, 2001 1:26 am

I'm running my system with 16-bit colour and I do notice the difference Saul mentions - it seems only in cases where there is a strong contrast between a/c and environment. Going on Blackened's suggestion, I pumped it up to 32-bit and the dithering is even more apparent with the images Saul posted.

Sonic99
 
Aer Lingus
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 4:06 am

Mine Actually Look Worse

Sat Jul 28, 2001 2:28 am

Sorry to be such an ass but I did notice this when checking my own photos:
NEW JPEG VERSION


OLD GIF VERSION


NEW JPEG VERSION


OLD GIF VERSION



The new format does look better on many of the photos but mine don't seem to look great
If any of you don't see the difference tell me and I'll review my monitor settings

Cheers,
Martin
 
administrator
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon May 17, 1999 5:11 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Sat Jul 28, 2001 6:11 am

Hello,

Thank you for your comments. I agree the quality of the JPEG versions of the photos posted by Nscaler and Aer Lingus seem to be of lower than the GIF versions. It is especially visible if you use a low resolution on your monitor. I tried it in 640x480 pixels and problems with the JPEG versions were very apparent. I normally use a resolution of 1280x960 pixels and the differences between the GIF and JPG versions is difficult to spot and even negligible. According to our stats, most people use a resolution of 800x600 pixels or higher. The standard is now 1024x728 and it's always increasing.

Have a look at the photos below. The top left one is GIF, top right is JPEG at quality setting 37, the bottom left is JPEG at quality 50 and the bottom right is JPEG at quality 75. I've included the file sizes below the images. Is quality increase to 50 or 75 worth the extra file size? Your thoughts are appreciated. Try it with both 640x480 and higher monitor resolutions.




GIF: 13257b JPG37: 3320b JPG50: 4536b JPG75: 5420b




GIF: 14618b JPG37: 3568b JPG50: 4949b JPG75: 5866b




GIF: 16046b JPG37: 4079b JPG50: 5883b JPG75: 7133b




GIF: 13040b JPG37: 4249b JPG50: 5889b JPG75: 7047b

Thanks,
Johan
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
 
administrator
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon May 17, 1999 5:11 am

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Sat Jul 28, 2001 6:26 am

Oh and one more thing. I've tried this with 16bit color and it looks quite bad. JPEG really shines when you use 24bit color or higher. GIF, that is a 256 color file format, looks better with lower resolutions and color settings.

I did not realize the difference was so clear. I will add a notice on the upload page that photographers will increase the chances of getting a photo accepted if they edit it on a computer with 24bit or higher color resolution. If they don't, they won't see the photo as I and the screeners do.

Regards,
Johan
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
 
DutchAir
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 6:09 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Sat Jul 28, 2001 7:04 am

Hi Johan and others,

I think the 75 quality is worth the extra file size, because at 37 and 50 you can see too much jpg compression in my opinion. (I use a res. of 1280*1024 and 32 bit.) The file size of a jpg at 75 is still less that the original gif image.

So I would say let's give it a try.

Regards,

Miguel
"People are assholes when flying"
 
sunilgupta
Posts: 768
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 12:15 pm

RE: Noticed The Difference?

Sat Jul 28, 2001 11:14 am

I also feel that the quality of 75 is worth the extra file size.

You are still saving about 50% of the file size as compaired to the GIF.

Sunil

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests