Hi /p/ I stole my sister's camera, here's a pictu

>>2941828
>Why do you guys want pictures to be 1MB and/or 1000 pixels on the longest side? I would've assumed the photography board would like the highest resolution and quality pictures they can get.

4chan used to be slow, but now it's not, but this Australian wrote a thing and it got stickied and everyone just goes along with it because herd mentality.

Anyway, your pic is just your standard pic of a bush. Nothing special.

For your kickstarter campaign, you'll want a light tent/light box. Look that shit up, son.

>>2941828
>Stole your sisters camera
>post picture of a bush
lol

>>2941842
>Anyway, your pic is just your standard pic of a bush. Nothing special.
Oh... okay...

>light tent/light box. Look that shit up, son.
Will do, thanks anon

>>2941843
Do you like it?

>>2941842
Basically this, just for aussies at this point
And for people to dumb to change their browser settings

>>2941828
>Why do you guys want pictures to be 1MB and/or 1000 pixels on the longest side? I would've assumed the photography board would like the highest resolution and quality pictures they can get.
Because your photo doesn't get better by magically being bigger. We don't need to see a 42 megapixel snapshit of a flower. We just don't need that much detail. Composition & content > gearfagging

4chan is also still shit and is slow, even worse Hiroshimoot is running it into the ground.

That aside, good for you. For your pictures, find a good way to present them, some nice soft light and maybe use a longer lens to blow out the background. Look at other good product shots for ads and you'll be golden.

>>2941870
Aye, and you can fuck of too pal. We dinnae need your kind aroond here anymare.

>>2941871
>Because your photo doesn't get better by magically being bigger.

Then why don't we do 640x480? File sizes will be even smaller, and since there's no benefit to larger dimensions, it's a win-win!

>>2941876
The answer 1000px is just the best compromise. Most people view on a screen that's 1920x1080, go over 1k on the vertical and you will either need to scroll about to see the whole image or rely on your browser resizing your image. Both of these make your image look like shit and at least 50% of the board won't open your shots, thanks for reading the sticky instead of going with your gut.

As someone with a bsc in audio technology, and who helped develop the ubiquitous minirig, do you mind sharing more about your product?

>>2941828
Let's see your sister's bush.

>>2942014
You uh... probably don't want to.

File: VETR3.jpg (332KB, 590x838px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 590x838px

>>2942011
The guy you replied to wasn't me (OP). Yeah I figured the sticky was best to follow.

And hey, that's neat! Basically, we made flat panel (really flat) speakers. A good analog is the transition from CRTs to LCDs. Our speakers are about an inch deep at the thickest point, but most of the visible part is just a carbon fiber panel, the rest is brushed stainless steel. Pic related, actually nobody outside of a small group of friends and family has seen this.

I'd link our website but it's not finished and I'd link our Kickstarter but we haven't made it yet. Hopefully shooting the video here in the next week or so, that's the last major hurdle we have.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.12
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:26 14:58:37
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/14.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Image Width	2951
Image Height	4191
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2942015
Why? What's wrong with it?

>>2941828
>I focused it all by myself, but I had to set the physical switch on the lens to turn off autofocus; I don't know how to turn it off on the camera.
The switch on the lens is the only proper way of turning off the AF. What you could also do is use back-button focusing, most cameras have a custom function that splits the shuttter and autofocus into two separate buttons, with AF being reassigned to the "AF" button under where your thumb would be on the body.

>>2942021
Except panel exciters sound like shit, they've been around for decades, big brands such as wharfedale have tried flogging them.

They have no usable extension (check out that first and third harmonic distortion) and they're too slow for good imaging in the midrange.

And then onto the waf (wife acceptance factor) panels need to be pretty fucking huge to get any bass out of, no one wants weird looking sheets of carbon fibre on their walls, and i bet 2 minirigs and a minirig sub would not only be a lot less visually intrusive, but also sound ten times better.

If you made affordable electrostatic panels, that would have been an interesting product.

Sorry to piss on your chips.

>>2942074
Damn,

When someone just shits all over your hopes and dreams like that.

>>2941828
What an odd coincidence that this how-to video was uploaded just today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYVHUDdozQ0&list=PLD78DF1BFEAAE0C1B&index=1

>>2942015
Did she dye it blue to protest the patriarchy?

>>2942074
>If you made affordable electrostatic panels, that would have been an interesting product.

I second this, immediately dump whatever you have already developed and make those instead, before you have a chance to screw things up in the KS phase.

File: 1475799278624.jpg (187KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1000x665px

>>2941828
>wut are curves

>>2942011
>The answer 1000px is just the best compromise. Most people view on a screen that's 1920x1080, go over 1k on the vertical and you will either need to scroll about to see the whole image or rely on your browser resizing your image. Both of these make your image look like shit
This is what everybody needs to understand about the size rule. Yes, speed is one of the factors, but browser resizing is a huge thing we want to avoid. Sure, if you've got a nice big screen for a desktop, it's fine, but a lot of people are on laptops.

>>2942139
desu I'd rec this.
Fuck over martin logan and what not.

>>2942139
I'm the guy that made that suggestion.
just realising how easy laser cutting and 3d printing has made making electrostatics.
Now trying to convince myself this will be another project I never finish.

Hold me back boys.

>>2941842
>used to be slow
>but now it's not
>tfw hiromoot wants to reduce max upload size because 4chin is dying

>>2942301
Do it queer, you won't

File: p in 2016.png (570KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 1920x1080px

>>2942254

Browser resizing is fine. I bet most people couldn't spot the difference between a browser resized file and some overly sharpened aliased-to-hell abomination some of you guys try to pass off as "sharp" around here. And, hell. The nice thing about browser resizing is that it isn't permanent. You have the browser resize for the thumbnail, and then you can zoom to 100% for details. It's win-win, especially compared to throwing away a bunch of detail so that.. you don't lose detail in browser resizing?

Also, sure, a lot of poorfags are on laptops, but a lot of OTHER people are on smartphones and tablets with 2k or 4k displays, and it's fucking absurd trying to look at a postage stamp sized photo because you guys are clinging to the past.

Here's what a typical /p/hoto looks like on my cheap-as-fuck 1920x1080 display.

>>2942074
I'm not at all sorry you pissed in his chips. In fact, keep going

>>2942439
I'm currently waiting on the cnc people so i can finish off a pair of standmounts with an open baffle full range 4" driver and 9" bass driver in an aperiodic cab. I've also made my own fibreglass horns for compression drivers, transmission line enclosures for full range drivers and i built in a 21" subwoofer into my parents old home that sat in the wall between the lounge and garage.

I lost interest in my mini line arrays, dipole rears, passive pre-amp and a coffee table with 12 6" subs built in (silly idea in hindsight).

And i also did the maths behind "big black", which was at one point europes spl champion.

I'm likely to lose interest if getting the transformers and shit become an issue, i try not to create anything which isn't economically viable.

>>2942548
>here's what a typical photo looks like on 1920x1080

>shows 640x480 image despite just discussing that 1000 x 700 is about as small as it gets here

Fucks sake anon.

because related
also: the compression diagram... jpg88... ftw
http://pseudosticky.wikia.com/wiki/Pseudo_sticky#Resize_your_images

>>2941842
Careful, your agenda is showing.
>but this Australian wrote a thing and it got stickied and everyone just goes along with it because herd mentality.
I wrote a thing based on what /p/ already understood to be fair play.
The 1000px thing existed long before that.
It's a good oversimplification that works.