What's the minimum size (in pixels) a HQ should be?

[Messias]

mersa's absolutely right about the minimum size.

The question wasn't abaout the quality but about the minimum size.

You can't blow up a pic without losing quality, but you'll be able to reduce it without any lost of quality, so the discussion about a minimum pixel size makes sense

Btw, the try to define HQ by filesize is even more senseless. I got pics (nope - not blown up) of 2 or 3 MB filesize that had been of a really bad quality

You'll have to look at every single one to judge if it's good quality or not. But you don't need small pixelsizes, besides you only want to use the pic for a very small part of a wallpaper or whatever

[Catscratch]

I think ppl should reconsider calling HQ, it's HR.

Now I don't mind having small pictures crystal clear or high-res pictures with poor quality in the HQ Celebrity Pictures section. There are people who collect every image they can find.

However, It's actually high res that this topic refers to anyway. C'mon High Quality doesn't mean High Resolution or vice versa.

[duyfken]

My quality scale:

LQ = 0-500
MQ = 500-1250
HQ = 1250-2500
UHQ = 2500-4000
SHQ = 4000-6000
SUHQ = 6000+

[CD]

That sounds reasonable

I think HQ starts when you can use them as wallpaper, everything below is just MQ at best, no matter how good it might be. Personally I start to call them HQ around 2000x1500. Of course a crappy picture stretched to that dimensions, or a bad scan still aren't HQ, there is more to it than just the resolution.

[Captain Charisma]

Until there is an official scale, I'll use two different scales regarding the Resolution and the Quality of a picture for my uploads.

Behind the pretty face:
I will try to provide as much information of a babe as possible. This includes a brief information on what she can claim. And as far as it's possible, I will provide links to the IMDb, the Wikipedia, the FashionModelDirectory and/or other relevant links.
This is a guideline for threads I started or threads that have just been started by other users. It would be greatly appreciated, if Crewmembers would add this info to the first post.

Quality:

• Low Quality (LQ): Artifacts clearly visible, big pixels. Regardless of the resolution.
  I won't post that stuff, unless there's a reason.
  Example
• Medium Quality (MQ): Unsharp, Visible use of digital zoom. Most paparazzi pics should fall in this category. Or Medium Resolution Pictures with high compression. Stuff you'll find on celebwebpages.
  Example
• High Quality (HQ): Sharp, decent lightning, no artifacts. Stuff you wanna see, stuff you'd use as a base for wallpaper work. Resolution should be at least 750 px on the shorter side.
  Example

Resolution:

• Low Resolution (LoRes): up to 400 px on the shorter Side.
• Medium Resolution (MidRes): 401 - 1000 px on the shorter Side
• High Resolution (HiRes): 1001 - 2000 px on the shorter Side. Must be HQ.
• Super High Resolution (SHiRes): 2001 - 4000 px on the shorter Side
• Ultra High Resolution (UHiRes): more than 4000 px on the shorter Side.
• Xtreme High Resolution (XHiRes): more than 6000 px on the shorter Side and absolutely sharp.
  

Scans are an exception. I'll put an Resolution info and state it is a Scan.

Syntax:
Number of images - Event/Photoshoot - Quality - Resolution - (Scan)

Feel free to use my guidelines or as a base to work on.

Updated: June 27, 2010

[Winchester]

LQ warning

What!

Sorry but these are HQ. I think I need to explain quality here. Yes they are watermarked and small but the quality is HQ. Bigger is not a meaning that are high quality. Quality speaks of the clear, crispness of a picture. Pixel break up is often seen when the picture is stretched. Which then makes it LQ!

I'll show you and explain quality to you...

Low Quality...


This is newspaper print scan and VLQ. Because it is printed in a very low quality print so you can't improve it.


This is also newspaper print. Done a different way though as they are taken off a archiver. Still LQ due to the pixel break up and over colouring.


Magazine print. Over stretched scan so pixel break up is present. Meaning again LQ.

High Quality...


Magazine print again. But this time not stretched so there is no pixel break up. Which means the picture retains depth in the print. So makes it HQ.


Candid that isn't even Photoshopped. HQ still as the every thing is present. Depth, colour and no pixel break up from stretching.


Small HQ. Yes they might not be massive. But with the photo depth there they are HQ in that there is no pixel break up.

Ultra High Quality...


UHQ because not only is the depth of nearly HD standard. They are also coloured to perfection. With not a ounce of pixel break up as they haven't been stretched.

This explain what quality is?

As quality does not mean size but depth in the picture. Pixel break up comes from stretching. Would you call a TV that is big but with poor picture HQ? HQ comes in all sizes, not just big.

[The Caretaker]

Nice little story you wrote there. By LQ/MQ/HQ/UHQ we talk about picture resolution as in size - ultra big/big/small/avatar size. And those you posted were avatar size - so they were tagged as LQ.

[CD]

In fairness, perhaps we should call it LR/MR/HR then...

[JasonSix]

I just came into this subforum here to suggest a minimum requirement for pictures in all the HQ threads. It seems someone has beat me to it!

I voted anything greater than 1000 pixels and it looks like the majority feels the same way. While I appreciate all the time and effort people spend on uploading and posting pictures of our favorite babes (Thanks!), it gets a little annoying at times to see a great set of pictures posted in thumbnail-sized (to me >400-600 pixels) quality.

What I came in here to suggest, rather than outright forbidding the posting of smaller resolution pictures, would be to implement a filtering system that the user could set from their User CP. They could define a minimum width x height that would be displayed in threads. I know hardly anything about message board software, or if it's even possible, but I just wanted to through the idea out there and see what you guys thought. I'm not complaining, Skins.be is a quality site just the way it is, but implementing a filtering system could only improve on that quality even more.

Thanks again to all those who contribute!

[Canada]

I voted 1000

[userforusing]

agreed.

Just saw that I did not vote in this thread yet.

So choose also 1000 cause that's what my personal classification is.
At least 1000*1000 px and the pic goes into my HQ folder .