4 ms·
This 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
by avar 16y ago
This 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).