Best size for still and movies

[Jerry y.]

I'm starting a solo girl site, and later may do a hardcore one too.

I'm shooting very hi-rez images, and also HD video.

I'm curious what sizes you all recommend for the still and also video.

I'm thinking three sizes for the stills (what pixel sizes and resolution?)

and maybe three option for the movies (I've determined- I think- windows media) from previous threads....
three options based on what connection they have.

Love to hear your expert opinions. thanks!

[Lana]

We've mucked around with this a lot so here's what I think.
Pics: For the thumb - no bigger than 10kb.
For the blow-up, no bigger than a 100kb.
You'll get all the quality you need from those file sizes.
Nothing worse than waiting.
It's always a balance between quality and file size for vids.
I'd say 700-1000 kbs at 640x480 for high vids and 200-400 kbs at 320x240 for low vids.
My honest opinion on high-def for net porn is it's a waste of time because most surfers won't use it because the buffer/download time isn't worth the wait for not much difference in quality.
Hi-def is great for DVD's but not much for the net.
If you want to use Hi-def render at 2000-2500 kbs. Huge file, long download and I think if you check your stats most people won't even be using that file anyways.

[Jerry y.]

thanks Lana

So for stills what would be three perfect sizes? ie, same for video.

I think three is a good number for both. People feel they are getting choices.

No intention now of putting out HD, just shot it that was in case for future.

[fpanko]

Resolution: 72dpi.
Don't go any larger on the web.

As for pixel demensions of an image.
Generally, people like fairly large pics. But really just come up with a standard that look good on your site.

I wouldn't do 3, it's unnecessary.
Just a thumb and a main, in most cases. (Unless your site design specificially calls for a 3rd.)

When thinking about your users, consider that the majority of users are on 1024x768 moniters.
I would just make sure your large pictures are visable and look good within these porportions.

[gandalfuy]

well,
actually u should compress trying not to loose too much quality.

browse and download stuff, sometimes a few kb could make a big quality dif, and u dont want that. do u?

[Jerry y.]

For print images. sorry, those anwers seem a bit vague. I'd love someone to give real numbers (ie pixels and resolution). I think 3 options is good marketing.

I think the high res movies are a good selling point.

[fpanko]

If your looking at print;
The standard is: 300dpi 8"x10"

[Charlies_Angel]

For our new site we're designing pages 900 pixels wide, pictures at 1200x800 and video at two sizes, 720x405 and 360x202.

I don't think there's a definitive 'perfect size' as video and computer desktop sizes change over time. Just shoot your images at max resolution (RAW if you got it), your video at the highest reso and size in post production to give the majority of users a nice balance of quality vs load time.

In a couple of years you may find yourself going back to the originals and regenerating them to current standards anyway.

Resolution.. that word always used to throw me until I started ignoring it (due to computer video screens are fixed at 72dpi (and some at 96dpi). I find it easier just to concentrate on pixel sizes. In the print world resolution is much more a concern.

Here's a tip: Check on some of the review sites and see if they have a designator for 'Hi-Res Images' and what their minimum definition is. For instance, some may mark a site as having a high resolution (there's that darned word again) requirement of 1800 pixels (width plus height), which in that case, you may want to target your images to meet the requirement. 1800 at a 4:3 aspect ratio would dictate a minimum image size at 1030x773.

For video... true HD is huge to download and may demand a good graphics card/CPU to can keep a 30 frame per scond stream going for a HD 1920x1080.

[Jerry y.]

thanks Angel, nice info. I was referring to print resolution, but now think that 72 is fine, as it's a web game, and images are meant to view on web and not print out later.

[Lana]

For the web: 72dpi
For straight to print: 300dpi
Anything downloaded and printed from the net will never have the quality as straight to print.
Like you said, most people aren't expecting high quality prints from the net.

[czechbabe]

I have a background as a professional photographer, so I think I can add a little technical knowledge to this question. Don't assume that something can't be printed just because its on the web at 72dpi. Making the picture large enough will allow an end user to print off perfectly reasonable prints with little effort albeit at a smaller size or with the help of some software to interpolate the files. There are many magazines out there who rip off huge amounts of material from the web simply because people are naive enough to publish big images on their web sites which are more than adequate to print in a magazine.

In a recent article I read somewhere the editor of a London newspaper said they didn't want files larger than 8MP because they were too large to handle quickly but they had the ability to create a full page from a file as small as 100K.

[Jerry y.]

Chech:
thanks , do you have examples of specific magazines that have done this?
I can't see putting only small images on my site becuase of fear of magzine doing this.
They would have to strip out the copyright etc,
so curious to see what you have discovered.

[czechbabe]

Obviously if you've got a watermark across an image its less likely they'll try to steal an image. Ripping out the metadata including the copyright information is a piece of cake if they even bother and the sad fact is that most porn producers don't include any meta data either to keep the weight low and save bandwidth or because they just don't care. My guess is that 99.99% of the time they never get caught and if they do the worst consequence is a few dollars publishing fee which they would have paid anyway. How do you discover that an image of yours is published one day in Thailand if you live in Canada?

I remember one major newspaper in Italy who were doing this all the time even 6-7 years ago. In fact they tried locating any image they needed on the web long before ever considering the thought of actually paying. Since then the internet has grown exponentially and we've had the digital camera revolution, so the amount of available material is simply staggering. Those who throw their images up on Flickr etc just to share or the maniacs at iStock who give away images with all rights to earn just a few cents have effectively decimated the value of photography and do as much harm as the P2P file sharers who feel at liberty to trade porn all over the world.

EDIT: As a quick side note there are countless photo libraries who are dumb enough to allow newspapers the freedom of downloading any hi res file they want and then self bill at a later date after publication. Those agencies rely on the honesty of the newspapers & magazines who very often "forget" that they published images. <http://tinyurl.com/233d6j>

[Jerry y.]

czechbabe
thanks for reminding me that these files should have more of the metadata fields entered. I was going to just enter copyright, but will now put more text in about usage (limited to just enjoyment...), and rights reserved and some more stern language.....

Still, the standard I see, is just a short watermark of the websites url name on bottom of image, which can easily be retouched out and folks who do that don't care about metadata or possible lawsuits -- they have no fear.

And I've heard, this industy is the worst. One guy said, the minute you put one your first movie, it will be on various sites around the world. You might see it being used to promote other sites etc.

At least images can have metadata. What can you do for your movies beyond the watermark? (besides DRM, which I"ve heard is not advisable)

[czechbabe]

Without a doubt this industry is the worst of the lot for image theft but we do ourselves no favours when we fail to adequately label our images.

There are far too many webmasters out there running adult web sites or perhaps just blogs with a substantial amount of material which has simply been lifted from other sites without paying a penny. Somebody, somewhere paid for that production and we should all take a really tough line with anybody who is involved in these kind of practices. Please everybody also make sure that you block hotlinking.

As far as I am concerned if somebody steals my images with the intent of making money from them I will go after them with the full force of the law. Why should I fly to another country, rent locations and work with big name models costing me thousands just so that some scumbag can rip off my exclusive material and spam it all over the net for their personal gain?

To improve matters, all of us who produce our own content must register it with the US Copyright Office before publication (including those outside the US) and I would also suggest using a service like Pic Scout which scours the web looking for infringements. Be aware that if another web site is using your material without the relevant releases and 2257 data they committing further offences.

[czechbabe]

Originally posted by Jerry y.
What can you do for your movies beyond the watermark? (besides DRM, which I"ve heard is not advisable)

Sorry I missed that question. I have worked in commercial Photography for 20 years so I know that area inside out. Film is new to me so there are probably other people who could offer greater insight and I would be interested to know myself, but I would suggest that the same deal applies in terms of registering for copyright and the same services like Pic Scout may also work for film. In some cases you can apply DRM but that largely depends on what you are doing.

The adult industry needs to stand up and take a really tough line against those who "share" our material on P2P networks but also against those apparently within the industry who simply steal material without a proper license. As somebody who has spent many years producing images it was natural for me to start creating my own content and I can understand that not everybody is able or wants to produce their own exclusive content but we have to take a tough line on those who simply steal.

On areas of your web site which anybody can view such as the tour pages, why not take some steps like slicing the images, disabling right click and adding a blank gif on top. Chances are that a would be thief will simply drift off to a softer target. Its a bit like protecting your house really. Leave the window open for long enough with a ladder outside and you will get thieves.

[Jerry y.]

thanks czech
what is splicing the image, and adding gif,never heard of those. what about putting really large watermark across the whole previw still?

Now, curious, what would you do if you saw infringment from some idiot in Bulgaria, Russia or China? Image the work, in tracking that down, and then getting a lawyer over there. And you would have to prove damages.

[czechbabe]

A really large watermark is probably the most effective deterrent of all but its a tricky point because you don't want that watermark to translate into lost sales during the tour stage.

Slicing the image is something I have never done myself but its a technique whereby the image is literally sliced so it appears normal on the web but if you try dragging it to desktop you only get a small part. The transparent gif is a technique for adding a small 1x1 transparent gif on top of the original which is completely invisible and adds no weight but if somebody tries to drag it away they only get the gif. Both of these methods can be beaten by a simple screen shot although they will lose some quality, however, I doubt if that bothers your average image thief.

Some countries are inevitably going to be harder to deal with than others and for that matter the same applies to individuals. I think you have to take these decisions on a practical basis depending on the level of infringement. The chief reason to register for copyright in the US is that it may give you a means to prosecute through the US and that $150,000 penalty per infringement is a pretty powerful deterrent to have on your side. Given that a very large chunk of infringements are through US individuals or hosted on US based domains is an extra incentive to do this. In most cases your best bet is simply to try and scare them and their web host by issuing a stern demand for removal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

[Jerry y.]

Czec

what's you opinon on watermark on images for samples. I was just thinking a big one across the image, "sample...www." people will understand that it's just samples and that the member images wont have a huge watermark like that.

If you add gif isn't that adding a layer? not clear on that.

Curious how many sizes of images do you offer and at what resolutions. Also, there is no 2257 warning you have to put on image like you do with movies?

[czechbabe]

My opinion on the watermarks is that it would depend largely on the look of your site and where the images are placed. For example I am building a gallery of wallpaper images right now for mobile phones which all have a watermark on them but none of the home page images are watermarked because that's my initial sales pitch which has to look as good as possible. Its a tricky one which involves personal judgement. There is no 100% way to protect your images and still make sales; you just do the best you can.

Look up the transparent gif on Google and you should find a few tutorials. I simply use a plug in with my design software that does it for me.

On the question of 2257 I am not a lawyer and I wouldn't want to give you the wrong advice. Seriously for all of us webmasters its plain dangerous to simply hand out 2257 advice without being qualified legal specialists. I am based in Europe though and my site is on a Dutch server which goes a long way to protecting me.