Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I reported elsewhere that I've noticed that photos that otherwise appear very sharp on my laptop screen look quite blurry when uploaded directly to Cake. Here's screenshot of a side-by-side comparison. The image on the left is seen through Windows Photos, while the one on the right is how it appears in Cake. Neither is very sharp in this screenshot (I don't know how to increase the resolution of the screen capture, I'm afraid, and re-uploading to Cake just increases the blur) but I can see the difference, and it's even more pronounced looking at the actual screen.

      So, my question for those with more experience is - is this a function of how cake works, or is there something I can do to improve my images? The original image - which I can post here if that will help, is a Jpeg 8.9MB, 4072 x 5988 pixels, 350 dpi, Bit depth 24, compressed bits/pixel 2

    • Is this a function of how cake works, or is there something I can do to improve my images? 

      **********
      I am putting in a request for input from someone who may be best able to answer your question:

      Hey @Vilen ! Can you answer Apocryphal’s question?

    • What you are doing is the right way to do it.

      In order for Cake to display the image it is best to upload the highest resolution available (we do have a certain limit to file size, which, I think is 10Mb). Once the image has been uploaded, it is then processed by imgix service we use on the backend to properly resize and show photos on different devices. The reason you are seeing a blurry version of the image on some devices and not others is that some browsers incorrectly report their device pixel ratio. So instead of showing the image that matches your screen resolution, the lower resolution images is being displayed and then scaled up.

      I'll ask @kevin to take a closer look at why the wrong size image is being served in this particular case. If there is a fix, we'll definitely implement it. So there is nothing else you need to do on your end other than keep on uploading the high resolution images directly to Cake.

      Here is a link to the actual high resolution image that you've uploaded to Cake: https://cake.imgix.net/m/tcXDmjCWryKq_1574293701386.jpeg

      @StephenL Thank you for the mention and bringing it to my attention!

    • I think you are being too generous for a free service. Admittedly storage is cheaper than it used to be but if someone wants to share high res images thay should 3rd party them and link em up.

      Keep your space for quick, low res jobs.

    • Thanks for your reply, @Vilen

      Hmm, so it's the browser? I have Chrome and MS Edge here at home on my laptop and I would say they both display equally. However, on my phone (IOS) it appears to display correctly. I have Firefox on a PC at work and can check tomorrow if you like.

      When I open the link you posted to the stored image, it's very sharp on my laptop. And that's not the 8.9 version - I actually uploaded a 1.7 mb version (I think). I'd actually prefer not to upload large files. In any case, I've noticed the blurring effect equally on large and small versions of photos in the past.

    • @Apocryphal, I'm here to help figure this out.

      It appears that the right image in the side by side comparison is shown in the composer, meaning the image has been uploaded and attached to the post, but not yet published. We show a low res image in the composer for performance -- a smaller image is rendered by our image host (Imgix) faster. When the post with the uploaded image is published, it will be served at an ideal resolution for the given browser. We might be able to do some tuning.

    • We want to serve an ideal image size to each user that matches their browser viewport, thus reducing data transfer, making it load faster. Most people's browser windows are far slimmer than 4072 px wide. Our image host, Imgix, does the compression, but I do get the feeling they're overly ambitious with the compression algorithm, sacrificing too much quality for performance. Also, they might just not be sharpening down-res'd images enough. I will take a look and see what we can do to tune the compression.

    • I don't have an exact recommendation offhand, but I tend to upload 10 megapixel images in JPEG sRGB (with 85% compression quality in Lightroom), because that's enough size for even browser view ports on 5k monitors. You could start there while I do some research.

    • Hmm... I guess I was mistaken @Chris ! This one is 16mb, uploaded fine.

      Has the size changed from the early days of Cake? Maybe I tried an upload early on and it failed. Or maybe I started linking images from my smug site so I could put more than one photo in a post.

    • I think we started at a 10 mb limit and I complained to Ryan it was too small so he changed it to 20. I sometimes bump into the 20 mb limit now wth my 45 mpix images, so I hope kevin finds it easy to bump up.

    • So I wonder if maximum resolution & size jpeg is uploaded and they get resized, how can someone ensure they view the best. Right now I am typing and viewing this on my 54" Panasonic Plasma TV which yields awesome colors, but I see the on screen image portion is quite small, about 1/2 of available screen real estate. I have to click on images to see them at maximum. On the other hand, if 45 Mb jpeg will never truly show on any typical device, is it worth it to you?

    • Thanks for bringing all of this up here! I don't think you need to upload such large files to being with. I size all of my images for web display at 1920 pixels on the long side and at 72 dpi. That is a beautiful size for viewing images on any monitor or screen. Most online compression tools are going to change the dpi to 72 anyway when you upload, so it's better to do it yourself first. But the pixel size max doesn't need to be any larger than 1920, unless you are displaying on a huge digital billboard.

      I still don't know why the browser choice would make the image not as sharp from device to device, though. Hmmmm......

    • Love this one, @Denise! Is there a reason you are uploading such large files here? Do you want to make the originals available for other people to download? I have a very large desktop monitor and my images always look great via a right click "view image" to see the full photo. I use a pixel size of 1920 on the long size, 72 dpi. If you aren't worried about uncredited/licensed use of your images, that's fine, but there really isn't any other reason to share photos here this big. Also, there is a great online tool to reduce the size of your files here.

    • Thanks @Jain!

      I usually don't upload the large files but I remembered not being able to upload them when I first started posting on Cake so I wanted to check whether I could upload the larger files. I usually do upload smaller files - but thanks for your concern!

      The uploaded file is compressed by Cake. The file as uploaded was 16mb. But when I did a save of the photo from Cake to my local computer the saved file was 422kb, tiny.

      If I want a smaller file for the web then I usually save one of the display sizes from my SmugMug site.

    • Got it, @Denise, makes sense. And I was wrong about right click/view image on this site, if you do that straight on the image from within the thread it takes you to the smaller file. Clicking directly on the image first then renders the original file in a new window and right click/save will let you download the full original you uploaded. At least I think, lol.

    • Clicking on the image first in the post and saving it locally does get a smaller file. If I save the image directly from the post it was 74kb as opposed to the 422kb I got when clicking on the image to get the larger image and then saving it.

      The original image was 16mb. I don't believe the full original image is available to viewers in Cake.

      @Vilen can you confirm that the original image is not accessible?

    • Here is my understanding:

      1. The DPI number embedded in a photo isn't meaningful. The only number that matters is the total pixels. If you print a 2000px image 10 inches wide you get a different DPI than it you print it 40 inches wide, no matter whether you specify 72 or 300 DPI in the image.

      Same holds for displays. You'll never know what DPI your images are displayed at no matter if you specify it in the image or not. An iPhone will typically display an image at 2x the dpi (~450) from a MacBook Pro (~225) because the laptop has similar D (dots) but more I (inches).

      2. As for 1920px, that may be enough for 90+% of people, but I can say for sure from my experience at SmugMug, the bigger display sizes are very popular among people with sharp young eyes and high density displays like 4K.

      When SmugMug bought Flickr, they made a big deal about how they would roll out something like 5K image display sizes, and I noticed there was a lot of positive chatter among geeks on Reddit about that. Some photographers want to limit their display sizes tho, which is understandable.

      3. The ideas behind Imgix are optimization and adapting to the insane variety of device resolutions. By optimization, I mean the tradeoff between speed and things like compression. You might like a very uncompressed image in your starbucks, but someone hiking remotely on cellular wants something very different. Same as for YouTube videos. I don't know how Imgix handles that, maybe Kevin does, and whether a poor connection causes them to deliver a more compressed image.

      What I do know is Imgix does not deliver the original, but always an optimized image for whatever display you have. Far as I know, there is no way to fetch the original you uploaded to Cake.