4 ms·
Facebook photos now 2048 pix wide
- STHayden 16y agothis is a great idea. In my mind their pictures and galleries is really what was one of the first big breaks for Facebook.
- robryan 16y agoGreat to see some of the results of the divvyshot acquisition finally coming to fruition.
- jkaljundi 16y agoBack in summer, many of the Facebook photos face tagging features came from Divvyshot if I remember correctly.
- cliffchang 16y agoYeah, notice that the blog post was written by Sam Odio!
- smackfu 16y agoThat is awesome. So many people have moved exclusively to Facebook for photos (because really it's only your friends who care), and better quality is always good. Plus it makes the "print your Facebook photos" feature a lot less stupid.
- avar 16y agoThis is much better, but 2048 pixels is still significantly smaller than modern high-quality digital cameras produce. It would be better if they weren't scaled down at all. They also don't mention what happened to previously uploaded photography. Presumably there's no way to get the high-quality originals upscaled now and users have to re-upload them.
- jkaljundi 16y agoRunning some local photo sharing sites in Europe myself, with tens of millions of photos, I would say people rarely open the originals or anything larger than 2048. Originals make sense only for historic archiving and paper prints. 99% of users never look at anything larger than what fits on their screen. Most photo sites keep the originals for future upscaling though, I would assume Facebook has done this as well? Storage is cheap. Even Youtube I believe has kept all the originals uploaded, even when they offered crappy low-res videos on the site. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- pistoriusp 16y agoWhat about the poor people looking at the images?
- _delirium 16y agoIt's smaller than the resolution high-quality DSLRs can reliably produce, but I think it probably does cover the vast majority of Facebook users' uploads. A 2048x1536 photo is still 3 megapixels, which isn't bad. Sure, 10-megapixel point and shoots are common, but most don't really reliably capture 10 megapixels worth of information, and might even benefit from being downsampled to 3 megapixels (if the downsampling algorithm is high quality, anyway).
- duck 16y agoI'm not a Flickr user, but was wondering what does it offer that Facebook doesn't?
- abraham 16y agoPublic by default? Although Facebook is trying really hard to do away with private by default.
- smackfu 16y agoGeotagging. EXIF info. Creative Commons licensing options. Traffic stats. Slidshows. Downloads of the original file.
- johannchiang 16y agoExactly. Wish that there is an option for users to keep EXIF including geotagging. And give us API to query metadata of pictures (with privacy control).
- rbritton 16y agoThe most important question for me is have they improved the compression and resizing quality at all? Historically Facebook's treatment of uploaded images has severely degraded them, often to the point where an originally sharp image looks blurry.