Search results

Sure, I just meant that you can't necessarily apply the 300x300 rules to the 240x320 photo. But you're right: none of the "well-composed" photos use 50% of the area. Did you use any image editing software to crop your photo?

Thanks, Tazmania. This picture shows two notable things: 1. The face covers approximately 30% of the surface area of the whole photo (not 50% as stated in the information docs) 2. The length of the face is greater than that permitted for the 300 x 300 photo. SO: Either they offer a...

Sorry - here: http://www.kevix.org/img/fitypercent.jpg

Darn, it gives a 404 not found error now.

I've mentioned this in another thread, but here goes again: 50% of the AREA of the photograph is just way too big for the head. They've got their maths wrong. If the HEIGHT of the head is exactly 50% of the height of the photograph, then the AREA will be somewhat less than 25% of the total area...

Be warned: the "validation" that the dvlottery site does of your photo only validates the pixel size and file format. It won't tell you if you have bad lighting, or the wrong head size, or if the resolution is wrong, or anything like that. It also won't detect whether your image has been altered...

Here's an image that I made in which the face takes up 49.5% of the total surface are, using an graphics package to count the individual pixels. It's gotta be wrong!! http://www.kevix.org/img/fitypercent.jpg

The rules that I've got say 150 - 200 pixels for the length of the head - and this length should also be between 50% and 69% of the total image height. In the picture I posted the length is *just* over 150 pixels. (So less than 50% if it's a 320 x 240 picture). Ugh, these rules are really...

Let's see if this works:

I found a sample photo on a web site last year some time which claimed to be an example of a "good" 320 x 240 photo. At the time I didn't pay it much attention, but I dug it out and compared it with the guidelines given for 300 x 300. I've superimposed the two images for comparison, and it seems...

That's the problem with the published photo instructions: they're really, really explicit if you happen to be using the 300 x 300 format - i.e. if you're scanning an existing photo. But if you want to take a new photo, using 320 x 240 pixels, the guidelines get thrown out of whack. Furthermore...