When will the megapixel meme die? I'm so sick of seeing,

>>56393583
When will autism die?

I agree. Would rather have a one megapixel camera but with amazing sensor and aperture than fifty megapixel garbage

File: 125080.jpg (3KB, 96x96px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 96x96px

>>56393583

Yeah, like, why does anyone care about Image Resolution anyway? When was the last time you even viewed an image in full size? I haven't opened an image file in years! Thumbnails are good enough. They give me the idea and thats all I need.

File: c4c22de95aee6f3fceb357c0b9ca9f79.jpg (3KB, 64x64px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 64x64px

And when it is this "FULL HD" meme shit gonna die out?
Nobody fucking cares.
Nobody would have Full HD if the kikes in the electronics industry didn't push it.
1280x1024 is MORE than enough for the shit people do on PCs.

>>56393792
Triggered

File: 33.jpg (1KB, 35x35px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 35x35px

>>56393811

Just like a SJeW to get triggered by THE FACTS.

File: DSC00291.jpg (3MB, 4000x6000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x6000px

>>56393583

I wish more phones could actually focus properly, I'd kill for a 100% crop that allowed manual focus easily.

>>56393843
You do view images in their full resulutions all the time e.g. favicons of sites and your wallpaper

more importantly why is there a picture of a jolla phone

Samsung™ Galaxy S7 Edge doesn't have this problem.

>>56393871
It's an unpremeditated picture.

>>56393869

Thats a good resolution for photos tho. Thumbnail size.
Also, my wallpaper is black. Why the fuck do people even have wallpapers for? Waste of RAM

>>56393961
Hello my black wallpaper master race friend!

>>56393583
>3mb
Wow, that's a lot.

>>56394058
See
>>56393807

Can literally store 1000x of >>56393807 in 3mb. Accomplishes the same goal. Why spend 3mb to see someone holding a picture of a phone? 3kb would be fine. I can see the woman holding the kind in the 3kb image just fine.

>>56393583
My favorites are the cellphone pics in battlestation threads with maximum resolution, very loose jpg compression, extreme noise reduction while out of focus and/or blurred because someone moved during the exposure. Like this one: >>56389016

Larger resolution has its advantages but for most content posted here it's of no use. Especially not when the image usually resolves far, far less than the resolution of the sensor.

The photography board has a nice rule of images being under 1 MB in size and 1000px wide on the longest edge. Basically both of those are automatically satisfied if you just scale the image to 1000 pixels on the longest edge and use jpg for photographs like a sensible human being. Should there be a reason to post a higher resolution version, you can always do that afterwards or just provide a link to it. It keeps the picture heavy threads easy to load and almost always shows all the necessary information for the picture in question.

>>56393807
full hd is 1980x1024 idiot