Those who regularly participate of visit dpreview challenges may have noticed a tiny – almost invisible – change: on the ‘entry detail’ page the camera name is now a link:
You’re probably wondering why we even mention it, and think that it should have been there from Day One. Indeed, to turn the camera name into a link did literally take only several minutes, and it would not be worth mentioning by itself. The bigger change preceding this happened ‘under the hood.’ During the first several months of running challenges, we have collected a large enough set of images to do a confident analysis of camera EXIF’s and build a solid EXIF database.
This change also has allowed us to improve the way images are uploaded to challenges. Most images (about 76% at the moment) are already coming with embedded EXIF and, for these, we identify the camera directly and link the image to the camera database right away. For the other submissions, we present the user with a dropdown and ask them to choose a camera from it:
Of course, we are not perfect and in the process of analysing the EXIF’s we learned that we are missing several cameras in our database; although the most popular cameras are already there, of course. It’s in an outgoing process, then and the missing cameras are now being added the database.
The remaining 24% entries (without EXIF) were processed and identified using a halfautomatic, half-manual process which has left us with about three thousands entries (less than 5% of all entries) which are not associated with any camera. It’s a mix of entries taken with film cameras, various non-camera devices and, presumably, genuine but mistyped digital cameras. We plan to identify as many as possibly over time, but it will be mostly a manual process.
We would appreciate any feedback. For instance, if you discover that some of your challenge entries have been misclassified, please let us know. We are only human and because of the semi-manual nature or the process, there could be errors.
Of source, the newly introduced camera link is just a beginning. We plan soon to introduce basic camera usage statistics (which you probably figured out at the beginning of the blog post).
Stay tuned!
I wonder if there's any chance for the site to actually act like 2009 and get at least a bit more wide, if not fully getting over the fixed-width mentality.
How many users are still viewing it on 800 pixels wide displays? I bet that they're a lot less than (at least) 1280, if not even 1920x1200/1080.
And any netbook user is only quickly glancing thru the site; most of the netbook users do their lenghty reads on their main computer, using a much bigger screen.
I respect the legacy, I realize that this design was good and functional 5 years ago, but keeping it would only mean that we will be able to read it on the next-gen screens... from cameras!
Posted by: Barbu | Jul 29, 2009 8:42:33 PM
Great job, guys! This already amazing site just gets better by the minute.
I'm a big fan of metadata and therefore applaud any effort to structure, cross-reference or build intelligence into the system like you're doing here. One day, you might do the same for lenses too (hint, hint ;o)
Thanks!
Posted by: R Borgsmidt | Jul 30, 2009 10:40:30 AM
I can agree with Barbu's sentiment -- a site designed, fixed-width, for 800 pixels wide is a bit weird in 2009.
1024 should at least be a reasonable thought at change.
Posted by: Federer Photography | Jul 30, 2009 8:27:38 PM
While we're on the subject, white text on a black background is not easy to read. Make it 20% and 80% or so of black and it would be much better.
Posted by: And Whats More | Jul 31, 2009 2:03:33 PM
On the subject of black backgrounds and white text, the higher the contrast between the two the easier it should be to read. In print it is said that black text on a white background is easiest to read, however I don't know whether that is true for a luminous screen.
Posted by: Paul | Jul 31, 2009 9:21:01 PM
I don't mind this site being 800x600 (I'm using and 22" LCD, 1600x1050). That way I do not need to use my browser in full screen, therefore leaving some room on screen to use other small aplications at once, without being on front of the browser's view.
(much like Macintosh users are already used to)
Posted by: Gabriel Dias | Aug 1, 2009 1:38:41 PM
@Gabriel Dias: but you still have to scroll like crazy to fully read something on this site or to get to the bottom.
I agree with Barbu, the site's width is outdated.
Posted by: glu | Aug 4, 2009 12:20:12 PM
How about doing some analysis on the EXIF you have and do a breakdown of the camera's used.
I suspect there will be way more P&S's used than people would give them credit for...
Posted by: Brad | Aug 5, 2009 5:10:02 AM
"...I agree with Barbu, the site's width is outdated..."
Being kept that way as we'll all be using smartphone cameras soon - take a photo, upload to challenge, see on dpreview - next "instant challenge" - announce, submission, vote in a day!
Posted by: ColinH | Aug 5, 2009 10:28:25 AM
I thought that since the camera model was a link it was going to take me to a page showing all the challenge photos taken by that camera type. Am I expecting too much, or does it already do this and I am missing it somehow?
Posted by: dpstrand | Aug 6, 2009 2:51:55 AM
Many of us are still at 1440x900 native resolution on 19" widescreen monitors.
Posted by: RuralDigital | Aug 6, 2009 3:06:27 PM
The white on black print on this site is fantastic. Much better than black on white.
Posted by: Don Russell | Aug 7, 2009 12:07:48 AM
Excellent.....these cameras have updated features with latest technologies
BPO Solutions
Posted by: Mahesh | Aug 8, 2009 9:46:23 AM
have a cannon f10 cant burn a cd or dvd any help
Posted by: jim | Aug 16, 2009 9:02:19 PM
I think the whole site is ok. Some time ago browsers didn't allow the upscaling of site graphics (text only) but now every single one does. I have no trouble reading and watching - simply enlarge for the site to be viewed comfortably.
Not everyone nowadays has an SLR, 22" LCD, a Ferrari, or an Alienware rig. That's why site width is ok, with proper enlarging in every browser.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 20, 2009 12:52:54 PM
Hi,
This change is good and interactive for the users and participants.I get some good links of the cameras.
Posted by: hdmi adapter | Sep 25, 2009 7:23:14 AM
I did my research on compact cameras and decided that I would buy this camera for my wife. We just came back from vacation using this camera. It performed wonderfully! I really liked how quick the camera was ready to shoot once the power was turned on.
Posted by: logitech speakers | Sep 25, 2009 12:05:36 PM
@Don Russell, I completely disagree. Black on white is sooo much better than the reverse. Not that the reverse is bad, mind you, but black on white is still king, in my mind.
Posted by: gaming mouse | Oct 11, 2009 6:36:12 AM