I think that it was a Wyldanimal post, or maybe it was Rex, but I think it suggested that most of the latter cards were going to have a better resolution. I've just updated the Jessica Joy cards, and they seem to have a better resolution.

At any rate, with the hope that the latter cards will be updated to a better resolution, I've purchased a Tracy Gold and a Cayenne Klein card, in the hopes that they will be "updated," too. In the recent past, I've not purchased these cards, because of the terrible resolution, even though the gals are hot.

Just thought I'd give y'all a head's up. And a thanks to wyldanimal, or Rex, if I understood his post, correctly.

sorry but I do not agree with you, try the card cayenne klein up to 120% and did the same with that of jessica joy, you will see that cayenne is much better quality than the update, this is a step backwards for me :(

@blueguarek ... oh man, Jessica Joy seems more HD refined than in the past. I dunno. If Cayenne is LESS HD resolution, I'm gonna have egg on my face. I guess that hope springs eternal.

Thanks for your input, though. - I sure was hopin' that the resolution would be better. Have you checked the updated resolution of Jessica Joy? If it seems the same to you, I dunno what I'm seein'.

before I knew how to touch the hair of jessica over my screen without pixelation, now it pixelise, I do not name is it better

I have a Hd screen 16/9 21.5 inch, I do not think it is a great size and I find the update of the jessica joy cards this saturday a decline in quality

agree with blueguarek

the update resized the files and made them smaller

according to the new "default resolution" solution they made for all the users with crap-PC's and for those
who wasn't able to configer the few checkboxes from the software by themself. It's a pity.

the longer the software lifes - the bigger the technical differences will became.

I just made a comparison for myself to see the difference of Jessicas file with the old (better) one.
I used a 1920x1200 resolution with an 24" monitor for this and we lost a lot with this update.

Is there away to go back before the update because i agree it looks bad.

I think only if you have a backup-copy of her older files

but anyway all new cards will surely offered with the new standarized resolution and not with the max possible res

thank you @virt4B ironman79

I feel less alone I was preaching in the desert xd

All of the Cards will be Offered in 3 reolutions.
You will select the one that Best Fits your Screen size at 100%, so there is no need to do on the fly re-sizing.

The sample Picture posted above, showed how on a 720P card, the Standing Size was TOO tall for a 720p Screen.

So depending on your Screen RESOLUTION (size makes no difference 21" or 120")
The Pixel resolution is what is important.

Standing size

720p - about 550 - 600px in Height
1080p - about 850 to 900px in height
3K - about 1400 - 1500px in height

totem has not published the 3K size - Soon....

The Task bar on your screen uses 40 to 80 px of height.
So on a 1024 x 768 or 1366 x 768 screen (70% of all users in the World have this size)
that leaves 688 px to display the card.

on a HD screens, 1920 x 10800, 1680 x 1050, 1280 x 1024
it leaves 944 to 1000px to display the card after you take away the taskbar height.


3K screen, 2880 x 1620 it leaves 1540px to display the card.

This makes Perfect sense to me - when you look at the screen size the card is targeted for.

720p - Standing height about 600 - Screen Space 688px - Clip Fills Screen at 100%

1080p - Standing height about 900 - Screen Space 944 to 1000px - Clip fills screen at 100%


3K - Standing height about 1500 - Screen Space 1540px - Clip fills screen at 100%

If you have a higher resolution screen - Get the 3K version, and then you will have to resize to fit your screen.

In 2014 to 2015 is predicted that 30% of computer users will update to Full HD screens.

So then the 1920 x 10800, 1680 x 1050, 1280 x 1024 screens will be the 60% to 70% of All Users for the Next 2 to 3 years.

Only 5% predicted to have 2k or Higher Screen size.
up to 10% by 2015

The 1080p Market, 1080p clips that FIT a 1080p screen is what totem must Target.

the 3k clips will only be 5% of the market.

That 2nd picture is MOST common Screen Dimensions Using the 1024 x 768, 1366 x 768, 1280 x 800, 1440 x 900 resolution.
the Latter two comprise about 5% of Users.
So combined - This is 80% of ALL computer users in the World today.
Have a screen of these size / resolution.

There is STILL a big need for 720p size clips that fit 720p screen at 100% with no resizing needed.

Totem is making the right choice.

Simply Download the proper size for your screen.

@Wyldanimal

Re: Totem is making the right choice.

I agree that Totem has made the right choice in terms of the alternative sizes they offer and the way they fit both standing and sitting clips to screen proportions. I also agree with your suggestions in another thread that users with more powerful computers should be offered controls that will let them resize clips to their taste at the cost of CPU performance.

@wildanimal

je ne dis pas le contraire et je comprend se que tu dis mais la on avait une résolution avec une certaine taille qui permettait de mettre les modèle comme sur les photo sans pixellisation avec une carte de 1080 dpi sur un écran en 1920*1080, se qui est normale et logique et se que l'on peut s'attendre actuellement vu les capacité technique, et se qu'on avait jusqu’à présent

que certain se plaignent et qu'il trouve ça "trop grand" comme taille, pas la résolution ici, vu qu'a certain moment on ne voyait pas les mains et que totem décide de supprimer les options du cgu.84 pour passer au .86 soit ok, je n'ai absolument rien contre, le zoom existe si je veux voir les modèle a la m^m taille que sur la version .84

se que je n'accepte pas ici c'est le retour en arrière vers un format "de base" plus petit qui pixelise quand on zoom pour avoir la taille du .84, ça c'est inadmissible de nos jours pour du 1080 filmer en 4K

surtout que totem nous a bien montrer depuis qu'on a la .84 que c'est possible sans que ça pixelise

google translation

@wildanimal

I do not disagree and I understand is that you say but we had a resolution with a certain size that allowed to the model like the photos without pixelation with a card of 1080 dpi on a screen 1920 * 1080 is which is normal and logical and that can be expected given the current technical capacity , and we had so far

that some ***** and finds it " too big" as size, not the resolution here, seen that point we could not see the hands, and totem decided to remove options cgu.84 to go to .86 ok, I have absolutely nothing against, the zoom is if I want to see the model has the same size on version .84

is that I do not agree here is the return back to a smaller size "base" that pixelise when you zoom to get the size of .84 , this is ***** nowadays for 1080 recorded in 4K

especially as totem us well since we show that the .84 is possible without it pixelise

"There is STILL a big need for 720p size clips that fit 720p screen at 100% with no resizing needed."

I couldn't agree more WA. Thanks for providing the research to support this.

My apologies for this thread. It was written BEFORE I started using the 1.1.0.86 version. I had to replace my hard drive, and when I downloaded VG again, it was the most recent version - and I MUCH prefer the previous version.

My thread comment was based on the previous version.

The ladies are MUCH TOO SMALL now.

And I hope that VG will bring back individual user decision making re: model size.

Again, my apologies for this thread.