Profile picture losing quality?!

[CamiBoi]

Hey guys. So I made my first ever Profile Picture today. I saved the image as 247x186. I don't have the bigger version anymore. Then when I upload it all the quality is just not as good, much more blurry.

I dunno if there's a way to fix this, or tips for future, but anything is helpful I guess

 

Quality in photoshop (Ignore the before image): http://prntscr.com/30jgdt

 

Then on profile: http://prntscr.com/30jgn0

 

Help please :matte-motes-crying:

 

 

[Rolig Loon]

If you are uploading images to SL,the dimensions have to be "powers of two".  That is, they need to be 64, 128, 256, 512, or 1024 pixels.  If you upload images with other dimensions, they are resized down to the closest power of two.  That almost always means distortion and loss of clarity.  Always resize down to final dimensions in Photoshop before you upload.

[Chic Aeon]

The best method I have found is to size your photo on a 400 x 300 space, then resize to 256 x 256 and sharpen a little. Then upload. This works perfectly if you are using a viewer that sees profiles in the non-square style. If you are an official viewer user then you can just adjust your profile on a 256 x 256 canvas ( I  think they are still square there - haven't checked in awhile).

 

There is no perfect way to get a profile photo to look good in both dimensions, so you need to choose. Since the vast majority of folks see profile pics "widescreen", that is how I do mine.

Any time you resize a graphic LARGER than it is, you will have blurriness. Been that way for a couple of decades or more .

[CamiBoi]

thanks to both of you :smileyhappy:

[Jackson Redstar]

I honestly wouldn't go less than 1024, all the images I upload are max allowed, 2048

and I do profiles 1:1, firestore still has the option on, by default, of seeing the 'old style' profile, with a 4:3 format, but, I do believe the "official" ratio now is 1:1

and a square photo slooks a little better strected to 4:3, than a 4:3 squised to 1:1, if you had to choose the lesser of 2 evils, IMO

[Rolig Loon]

The maximum size allowed on upload is 1024 x 1024 pixels, not 2048 x 2048.  Anything larger than that is automatically downsized by the servers as the file is converted to JPEG2000. Textures applied to an avatar are automatically resized to 512 x 512. It is very rare that you ever need an image larger than 512 x 512, unless you are putting a detailed image on the side of a building.  A texture used in a profile pic will never be viewed large enough to justify uploading it larger than 256 x 256.  Using textures that are larger than necessary creates render lag for everyone, for a minimal gain in resolution. That's worth considering carefully when you realize that most visitors will spend only a fraction of a second looking at it -- not enough to see the difference -- so you have annoyed them with render lag for no gain in the end.

[Coby Foden]

Rolig is right about the texture sizes. Very good advice and info.

Jackson, see here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits 

Scroll down to "Textures" on that page.
Maximum allowed has been some time in the history 2048 x 2048, but now the maximum uploadable size is 1024 x 1024.

PS.
Web profiles have 1:1 aspect ratio for the profile picture.
The old legacy profiles have 4:3 aspect ratio for the 2nd Life tab profile picture.

What I did is that I use 8:7 aspect ratio in my profile picture. That aspect ratio is half way between 1:1 and 4:3 aspect ratios. When viewed in web profile the image is squashed a bit, when viewed in legacy profile the image is stretched a bit. This is a kind of midway solution, what ever profile is used, image will look quite ok.

[Jackson Redstar]

that's interesting. didn't really notice it was downsizing. on uploads you will still get a message if you try uploadig something larger than 2048 (least on Niran's viewer)

and yeah, for a pic just on your profile, larger won't show any more quality. But if they are displayed in world on say a 5mx5m board, you will notice the difference between 256, 512 or 1024. well, at least i can see it:)

but i wll also say this, while sl may be downsizing to 1024, there is also a difference in quality between an image outside of sl between 1024 and 2048 (or higher)

[Rolig Loon]

---

Jackson Redstar wrote:

[ .... ]

but i wll also say this, while sl may be downsizing to 1024, there is also a difference in quality between an image outside of sl between 1024 and 2048 (or higher)

---

Oh, definitely.  It always makes sense to do your texture creation at a higher resolution (2048 x 2048 or higher) and then downsize before uploading.  Downsizing deemphasizes irregularities and gives you a cleaner image than if you had done all your work at lower resolution.  The only negative is that very small details can be lost in downsizing.  As an extreme example, a line that is 1 pixel wide at 2048 x 2048 will disappear at lower resolution.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

a line that is 1 pixel wide at 2048 x 2048 will disappear at lower resolution.

---

Not necessarily! A good downsampling algorithm will retain that line through quite a bit of squishing. Here's an example. I started with four 1 pixel wide lines at 2048x2048, then cut the dimensions in half all the way down to 8x8. I used Photoshop's standard Bicubic resampling. I think you can see all four lines all the way down to 16x16. That's 128x reduction in dimension!

Notice that the diagonals survive longer than the vertical/horizontal. That's an artifact of the drawing and decimating algorithms.

 

I completely agree with the rest of your statement, but I'm oppositional, so I must always find something to disagree with.

Some of you may have noticed that I'm constantly altering my forum badge. I do my original work at 4x the badge resolution, using a template I made by scaling up a snapshot of my empty badge. I often nudge my image pieces by one pixel to get just the right placement in the final badge. So I'm routinely making adjustments at 1/4th of an output pixel, and I can easily see the difference.

I do all my skin/clothing work at 2048x2048. If SL ever allows higher resolution avatar textures, I'm ready.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Here's another demonstration of what can happen when you scale down an image, showing exactly the opposite effect (preservation) of my previous post.

Here's a black/white checkboard texture, 128x128. This is the highest spatial frequency pattern you can create. Our eyes look for high spatial frequency content, and since this contains a lot of it, you may notice that the pattern flickers, or is a bit hard on your eyes. That's because it's begging for attention. You may also see some display system artifacts if you scroll the page, change your viewing angle, or lick your fingertip and touch the pattern (that's the most fun, as it reveals the Red/Green/Blue pixels of your display. The little saliva drops on the glass act as microscopes!).

At a distance the pattern appears to be a uniform grey because the angular distance between pixels (the reciprocal of spatial frequency) becomes smaller than the angular distance between the rods and cones on your retina. It now takes multiple pixels to illuminate one rod/cone and the result is that you see the average of the pattern, not the pattern itself. And the average of black and white is.. grey. Doubling your distance from the pattern is the same as shrinking it in size by a factor of two.

Now, let's see what happens if we ask the computer to shrink the image by just that amount. Here's the result of using Photoshop's "nearest neighbor" decimation algorithm, which replaces the four pixels around a target pixel with the color of the nearest neighbor. Depending on where the algorithm sets its zero point, the nearest neighbor could be either a black pixel or a white one, but nothing else. The original image has only those two colors in it...

That doesn't look anything like the orignal pattern from 2x as far away, does it? Now, lets use the "Bilinear" algorithm, which produces output pixels that are the linear average of the nearest 2x2 box of original pixels...

Now that's a uniform grey, but I'll guess it's not the same shade of grey as you see in the original image when viewing from a distance. This is because your computer's display system probably isn't linear (your eye isn't either). Computers try to address issues like this via "gamma" which is a correction curve applied to pixel intensity. Unfortunately, gamma cannot account for display system artifacts that are spatial frequency dependent.

Here's another scaling algorithm that works well on typical image content, but fails miserably on a regular checkboard, it's called "Bicubic" and produces results (particularly on enlargment) that are smoother than bilinear and much smoother than nearest neighbor (again for enlargment)...

Notice the horizontal artifact in the middle of the image? Oops! You may also notice that this image is not the same shade of grey as the original from a distance, nor the bilinear reduction.

So, unlike my previous post, where fine lines were preserved through a massive reduction in size, we've seen just a 2x reduction destroy ALL the detail in a texture. And that's because the detail of this second image is all at very high frequency. The four lines in the images of the previous post were actually fairly low frequency information, and easy to preserve.

Maybe next I'll show what happens when you enlarge stuff.

If you want to have even more fun, import the original checkerboard texture, apply it to a prim and cam around it. If you're cheap (I am!), IM me and I'll send you a copy.

;-)

[Perrie Juran]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

The maximum size allowed on upload is 1024 x 1024 pixels, not 2048 x 2048.  Anything larger than that is automatically downsized by the servers as the file is converted to JPEG2000. Textures applied to an avatar are automatically resized to 512 x 512. It is very rare that you ever need an image larger than 512 x 512, unless you are putting a detailed image on the side of a building.  A texture used in a profile pic will never be viewed large enough to justify uploading it larger than 256 x 256.  Using textures that are larger than necessary creates render lag for everyone, for a minimal gain in resolution. That's worth considering carefully when you realize that most visitors will spend only a fraction of a second looking at it -- not enough to see the difference -- so you have annoyed them with render lag for no gain in the end.

---

I save all my pictures I take In World to disk in 4:3 ratio at highest resolution possible.

Because some TPV's allow you to 'pop out' the textures used in profiles sometimes I like stretching them to get a larger view.  I guess the day may come LL deprecates heritage profiles but until then I am going to use the highest quality I can.  I really dislike when I stretch an image and it blurs because the resolution was too low to begin with.

Now for building purposes I will use the smallest image I can.  But that's a different purpose.

[Tamara Artis]

I agree with Perrie Juran

Building textures should be smallest possible but as a person who spends countless hours adding little details to profile photos I want people to see what I did

[Jackson Redstar]

maybe a little OT, but, sure would be nice is Linden narrowed down and standardized aspect ratios, so that one picture to be displayed in various places doesnt need different aspect ratios

and a hint for people running photo contests in world and displaying photos in world, my little pet peeve here: Tell us what aspect ratio you will be displayig them as, or display them as the aspect ratio we send them to you! grrr! nothing more frustrating then sending a photo at 16:9, only to see them display it is a 1:1 ratio!

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Jackson Redstar wrote:

maybe a little OT, but, sure would be nice is Linden narrowed down and standardized aspect ratios, so that one picture to be displayed in various places doesnt need different aspect ratios

---

By Torley Linden on ‎27-08-2009:

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/TNT-Second-Life-Tips-Tricks/GUIDE-End-squashed-images-Get-correct-texture-aspect-ratios/ba-p/648099

I've long heard Residents rightfully complain about our bizarre jumble of aspect ratios. We endeavor to simplify this in the future, so there's less of this…

[unquote]

 

Well, the simplifying never happened.      Sigh... :smileysad:

[Pussycat Catnap]

They simplified down to 1:1 for profiles a LONG time ago.

They've just not disabled the older system. Yet. So some TPVs still allow access to it.

 

[Coby Foden]

Yes, yes... they did change the profile picture from 4:3 to 1:1 (the picture in 2nd Life tab in old profiles) - a LONG time ago.

So now in the web profiles, the profile picture and real worl picture, both have now the same 1:1 aspect ratio. In the old profiles 2nd Life picture has 4:3 aspect ratio and the 1st life picture has 1:1 aspect ratio.

This aspect ratio change in the web profiles didn't improve anything. Linden Lab are well aware that the old profiles are still vastly used. Besides they work faster and are less obtrusive in the viewer than the glaring web profiles.

Anyway, Torley wasn't speaking only of the profile picture aspect ratio. In general the aspect ratios what are presently used are still a big mess.


http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits

Aspect ratios

Second Life Viewer 3.6

• Search > Classifieds thumbnail - ~3:2 (101×69 pixels)
• Search > Classifieds expanded - ~4:3 (159×120 pixels)
• Search > Classifieds expanded > More Info - native aspect ratio
• Search > Destination Guide thumbnail - ~3:2 (101×69 pixels)
• Search > Destination Guide expanded - ~4:3 (159×120 pixels)
• Search > People - 1:1 (100×100 pixels)
• Search > Places expanded ~4:3 (159×120 pixels)
• Place Profile - ~3:2 (290×197 pixels)
• About Land > Options tab - ~4:3 (195×150 pixels)
• Profile > Picture - native aspect ratio; thumbnail cropped to 72×72 pixels; zoomed uncropped up to 300×300 pixels
• Profile > Real world picture - native aspect ratio; thumbnail cropped to 45×45 pixels; zoomed uncropped up to 300×300 pixels
• Profile > Picks thumbnail - 4:3 (60×45 pixels)
• Profile > Pick expanded - 4:3 (320×240 pixels)

 

1.x Series Viewers

(official Viewer up to 1.23.5, still used by some Third Party Viewers)

• Search > All for "Classifieds", "People", and "Places" - 4:3 (256×192 pi×els)
• Search > Places and Classified tabs - ~7:5 (398×282 pixels)
• Search > Land tab - ~7:5 (358×252 pixels)
• Profile > 2nd Life tab - ~4:3 (178×133 pixels)
• Profile > Picks tab - 16:9 (288×162 pixels)
• Profile > 1st Life tab - 1:1 (133×133 pixels)
• Profile > Classifieds tab - ~3:2 (206×137 pixels)
• Profile > Web tab- 1:1 (400×400 pixels)
  • A scrollbar uses 15 pixels on the right-hand side.
• About Land > Options tab - ~3:2 (178×117 pixels)
• Group Information > General tab's "Group Insignia" - 1:1 (126×126 pixels)

All the above aspect ratios and sizes are still in effect. Linden Lab and TPV developers should sit at the same table and discuss this over. The solution is not just to disable the old profiles. Unification the aspect ratios in the old profiles and web profiles surely would not be impossible - if there was a will to do so.

PS. I created a JIRA to Firestorm team to see is there anything they can do for the unification of the aspect ratios.
http://jira.phoenixviewer.com/browse/FIRE-13280