Tug parade   3260
previous panorama
next panorama
Orientation on / offOrientation on / off
Details / LabelsDetails / Labels Markers on / offMarkers on / off Overview on / offOverview on / off   
 Cycle through labels:   first previous stop
play
pause
next last
  zoom out
 

Labels

1 UASC ZAM ZAM, 299.92x48.26 m
2 DENICK II
3 Tug 29
4 Tug 9
5 Tug 18
6 Tug 28
7 Tug 1
8 Dockyard III
9 Dockyard V
10 Saeftinghe
11 Hercules

Details

Location: Waterfront, Terneuzen (66 m)      by: Mentor Depret
Area: Netherlands      Date: 2019 06 28 5:52 PMst
Every year, the city of Terneuzen holds its Havendagen (Port days) on the last weekend of June. In 2019, this fair started in the afternoon of Friday 28th with a tug parade. Like every year, several tugs from the Rotterdam museum were present: Dockyard III and V, Hercules, Saeftinghe (built 1937).

Canon EOS M6 with EF-M 18-150 mm, 9 p RAW, 40 mm (64 mm KB), iso 100, f 9, 1/200 s, PTGuiPro 20423x3867 318.3 MB TIFF, downsized 2641x500 532 KB JPEG

ATTENTION, ATTENTION

You know I have expressed my annoyance many times about this downsizing to a 500 pixel height. This results in an extremely low quality especially when a lot of small details make the scene for instance a starry sky, city lights at night or even the tugs on this pano to name a few. This always looks fuzzy even after sharpening which by the way is destructive.
To be clear, I have an iMac 27 inch and the 500 px height panos have a height of 13.2 cm on my screen.

I think this downsizing to 500 px is totally archaic today and it is sad to see the good work of many photographers to end up in a very low quality presentation. Maybe the file size was and still is a reason for that.

I think an increase of the height to a 1000 pixels should be introduced. This almost completely eliminates the need for destructive sharpening which by the way also increases the JPEG file size quite a lot. Of course a 1000 px height quadruples the amount of pixels but this doesn’t mean a quadrupling of the file size is necessary to have a nice and much more detailed presentation on this site.

I did the following. I exported a 1000 px height JPEG from a downsized 1000 px height TIFF, without sharpening and with a considerable reduction of the quality.
So from a 5282x1000 15.9 MB TIFF, I made a 5282x1000 775 KB JPEG ( 6.7 MB at maximum quality) which resulted in a SUPERIOR quality compared to the 2641x500 532 KB JPEG fuzzy pano here above.

I also did the same with a starry sky pano and indeed obtained a superior view for only a slight increase of the file size compared to the sharpened 500 px.



As a conclusion. With about the same file size, one obtains a far better quality with a quality reduced, non sharpened 1000 px height compared to a maximized (to the site limits), sharpened 500 px height panorama. Do the test yourself, you will see!

Comments

A view that I also enjoy in its present presentation and size.
I think we all agree with your desire, but we need to respect Thomas Schabachers priorities and be thankful that he at least invested into https and GDPR a year ago to keep the platform alive.
Cheers, Martin
2020/01/14 20:16 , Martin Kraus
thx Martin but I guess that the main reason for a 500 px height is limited storage capacity. If one can obtain a much sharper pano for about the same file size, as I explained, this is a logical step to take!
2020/01/14 23:31 , Mentor Depret
I´m with you on the limited height of 500px, but I doubt that there will be any changes within the next few years...:-(
2020/01/28 08:44 , Johannes Ha

Leave a comment


Mentor Depret

More panoramas

... in the vicinity  
... in the top 100