Weekly Flag Challenge referendum: Abolish image size limit?

[Transparent Blue]

Currently, the Weekly Flag Challenge rules require that all flag entries must fit within a 400px by 800px rectangle, or if it part of a multiple-flag entry, a 200px by 400px rectangle. This rule was instated because some users would enter very large images that would make it difficult to compare entries and would go off the screen on mobile devices. Now that the forum software has been upgraded, there have been calls to abolish the size limit.

Reasons for change:

• The new forum software automatically resizes images if they are larger than the screen. This negates the problem that we used to have on mobile devices.
  
• Flags with a lot of detail become fuzzy and indistinct when shrunk down to fit the size limit, reducing the quality of the entries.
• The display resolutions of mobile and desktop screens are much higher than they used to be. Images larger than 400px by 800px will no longer be a hindrance for most users.

Reasons against change:

• When the forum automatically resizes a large image to fit the screen, it is scaled to just fit within the screen's limits. This is still far too large and there would be a disparity between these large images and smaller entries, which would make it difficult to compare them.
  
• Flags should not have so much detail that they become indistinct at a size of 400px by 800px.

 

[The Professor]

I'm definitely against a complete abolition of size restriction in order to maintain comparability.

I can see an argument for an increase in the limit, though this depends on people's devices.

 

[Transparent Blue]

I'm definitely against a complete abolition of size restriction in order to maintain comparability.

I can see an argument for an increase in the limit, though this depends on people's devices.

I agree with you. The scaled down pictures are still massive, but if people want the size limit to be bigger, I think we can negotiate some bigger size.

 

[Transparent Blue]

I agree with you. The scaled down pictures are still massive, but if people want the size limit to be bigger, I think we can negotiate some bigger size.

That said, the current limit of 400px by 800px was already decided through common discussion and everybody was happy at the time, though I suppose it took some time for entrants to actually try it out a few times and maybe a lot of people have upgraded their phones since then.

 

[Cochlea]

I say just extend the current size restriction by 200px, or that any one side of the flag to be no more than 1000px. This way we don't get anything too unreasonably large.

 

[The Professor]

I say just extend the current size restriction by 200px, or that any one side of the flag to be no more than 1000px. This way we don't get anything too unreasonably large.

If the second option wins then I would suggest a further vote on the maximum lengths being 450x900, 500x1000, or 600x1200.

 

[Cochlea]

If the second option wins then I would suggest a further vote on the maximum lengths being 450x900, 500x1000, or 600x1200.

I would allow for different options of aspect ratio, so would instead place the size restrictions to be per side. Most flags would be in the 1:2 aspect ratio, but say if someone designed a square flag, then the restriction should be 1000px per side.

 

[The Professor]

I would allow for different options of aspect ratio, so would instead place the size restrictions to be per side. Most flags would be in the 1:2 aspect ratio, but say if someone designed a square flag, then the restriction should be 1000px per side.

It's only going to be 1:2 if you want to hit BOTH maximums. I think fitting within a 1000x1000 is too big.

 

[Transparent Blue]

If we go with a bigger size, I think a good way to determine the limit is to ask recent winners what size they made their flags at originally before downsizing.

 

[Ashtagon]

I voted no change.

For smaller screens, all flags will look the same size regardless of file size, thanks to the forum software.

For larger screens, including pretty much any modern desktop PC, abolishing the size limit will result in some flags appearing as a "small" 400x800 image, and others occupying the screen width. This can result in a display size difference of as much as 3x in some cases, making it hard for a person to compare like for like.

 

[The Professor]

If we go with a bigger size, I think a good way to determine the limit is to ask recent winners what size they made their flags at originally before downsizing.

I always make mine at twice the height. So used to make them 600px high and now 800px.

 

[Cochlea]

It's only going to be 1:2 if you want to hit BOTH maximums. I think fitting within a 1000x1000 is too big.

I think the bigger issue is flag width when it comes to fitting on the screen. What new size limits would you have per aspect ratio, including the more unusual aspect ratios like square flags? Additionally, a very important consideration is having the flag be big enough to have all details look good. I think if we're going to set an increased size limit, it should be one that allows for more detailed flags (in case the flag is detailed enough to benefit from it, see below).

Not all flags will happen to be simple designs, many historical flags and types of flags are of a busier design. Think of flags with entire coats of arms on them, for example. I also think we should allow the flags in our ongoing challenge to remain sizes larger than the 800 x 400, which includes mine, which is 1000 x 600, a good enough size for a 3:5 flag IMO and allows for details like the thin offset-outlines on the main elements to look good and not pixelly.

If we go with a bigger size, I think a good way to determine the limit is to ask recent winners what size they made their flags at originally before downsizing.

I don't really need to downsize since I work with Inkscape and vectors allow you to zoom in and out without detail degradation. But I'm interested in knowing what people who work with raster graphics size their flags originally, since that would be the size where details look best for their flag, I imagine.

 

[The Professor]

I think the bigger issue is flag width when it comes to fitting on the screen. What new size limits would you have per aspect ratio, including the more unusual aspect ratios like square flags? Additionally, a very important consideration is having the flag be big enough to have all details look good. I think if we're going to set an increased size limit, it should be one that allows for more detailed flags (in case the flag is detailed enough to benefit from it, see below).

Not all flags will happen to be simple designs, many historical flags and types of flags are of a busier design. Think of flags with entire coats of arms on them, for example. I also think we should allow the flags in our ongoing challenge to remain sizes larger than the 800 x 400, which includes mine, which is 1000 x 600, a good enough size for a 3:5 flag IMO and allows for details like the thin offset-outlines on the main elements to look good and not pixelly.

As I said earlier: 450x900, 500x1000, or 600x1200. The first being the maximum length of the shortest side, the second the maximum of the longest, squares essentially the shortest side.
Or would you favour a "half circumference" size? - The above as examples would thus be 1350, 1500, 1800.

 

[Cochlea]

As I said earlier: 450x900, 500x1000, or 600x1200. The first being the maximum length of the shortest side, the second the maximum of the longest, squares essentially the shortest side.
Or would you favour a "half circumference" size? - The above as examples would thus be 1350, 1500, 1800.

I think 1200x600 is good enough for a maximum for rectangular flags, with whatever aspect ratio being fit into that general rectangle. Square flags should be 1000x1000 for details to look good. This is an example of a busy square flag at that size, the details come out good at this size:

 

[Transparent Blue]

I don't really need to downsize since I work with Inkscape and vectors allow you to zoom in and out without detail degradation. But I'm interested in knowing what people who work with raster graphics size their flags originally, since that would be the size where details look best for their flag, I imagine.

When you worked with vector graphics, did you still display it at a certain size (or range of sizes) most of the time while working with it?

 

[Cochlea]

When you worked with vector graphics, did you still display it at a certain size (or range of sizes) most of the time while working with it?

While working on it, not really, I tend to zoom in and out constantly to work on details and making sure every element fits together geometrically. Only with raster images in programs like Photoshop or GIMP have I needed to start with a larger size to work with easier, especially since the "geometricality" of flags is easier to deal with in Inkscape since your essential units are vectors rather than pixels.

 

[Xanthoc]

As someone who works a decent amount with heraldry, I think large sizes work better. Not to mention that if a flag does not need to be a larger size to display its detail, then it would still look good at either a large size or a smaller one, whereas something intricate requires size to prevent image quality degradation. I also want to point out that all entries are quoted now, meaning they will be of equal size until someone clicks on it to zoom out the image.

I also would appreciate if we were allowed the option to change our votes before the poll closes. If 2 votes went to No Change right now, the poll would close with 16:15:10, which is actually 16:25 against. I voted Abolish, but would also be willing to take an increase if nothing else. As it is, @Transparent Blue just sort of split the against vote in two. I don't want to make accusations of an attempt to ensure a No Change victory, but it kind of feels that way.

 

[Transparent Blue]

I also would appreciate if we were allowed the option to change our votes before the poll closes. If 2 votes went to No Change right now, the poll would close with 16:15:10, which is actually 16:25 against. I voted Abolish, but would also be willing to take an increase if nothing else. As it is, @Transparent Blue just sort of split the against vote in two. I don't want to make accusations of an attempt to ensure a No Change victory, but it kind of feels that way.

If I were deliberately splitting the "no change" votes, wouldn't I be biased against that option? I understand your point about the majorities though, so I have changed the poll to allow multiple choices to be selected, and those who have already voted may now adjust their vote to express all their preferences instead of just one.

 

[The Professor]

I think 1200x600 is good enough for a maximum for rectangular flags, with whatever aspect ratio being fit into that general rectangle. Square flags should be 1000x1000 for details to look good. This is an example of a busy square flag at that size, the details come out good at this size:

I see your point though 1000sq would still look too big comparable to one at 600x1200, a 900sq seems better at that size.

I guess I'm rather biased against busy flags since despite detail showing that flag looks awful to me as a flag.
If there were a Coat of Arms Challenge however...

 

[Xanthoc]

If I were deliberately splitting the "no change" votes, wouldn't I be biased against that option? I understand your point about the majorities though, so I have changed the poll to allow multiple choices to be selected, and those who have already voted may now adjust their vote to express all their preferences instead of just one.

I was saying it was splitting the "Change" votes. No change was getting the votes of those who want it as is. Those who want change were either voting for a higher limit or for no limit, thus splitting the 'against' (as in 'against' the present rule) vote