Screen resolution?

[Gingerbread Man]

Picture posting guidelines said:

1) Pictures should be no more than 750 pixels either horizontally or vertically and no more than about 100KB each (Due to limitations of screen sizes and the PH squishing code, as well as 56k friendliness)

It seems many think that this is out of date and the far majority of people now have broadband.

If everyone reading this can fill in the poll, we can see how to go about changing the picture posting file/ image size.

A: Their current speed of internet connection,
B: Current screen resolution.

David

[LukeBird]

No 1280x1024?
I would have thought for a home PC that'd be the most common resolution...

ETA And it's what I use; although soon to be 1920x1200
That or my iPhone or Wii on HDTV. I'm fussy!

Edited by LukeBird on Saturday 4th October 17:11

[Gingerbread Man]

LukeBird said:

No 1280x1024?
I would have thought for a home PC that'd be the most common resolution...

ETA And it's what I use; although soon to be 1920x1200
That or my iPhone or Wii on HDTV. I'm fussy!

Edited by LukeBird on Saturday 4th October 17:11

Added some more resolutions (too many to pick from!). Just pick the rough one which relates to you to give a rough idea.

Maybe post to say what one you picked, what one you're running if there is not the 100% correct one and if you're on a standard/ widescreen.


This will be a starting point.


I guess I better vote myself

[LukeBird]

1280x1024 and Broadband for my regular PH-browsing machine

[cs02rm0]

Even my laptop's at 1920x1200. That doesn't mean I want to see massive pictures posted, it's nice not to have to maximise the browser.

Firefox scales them down anyway.

Edited by cs02rm0 on Saturday 4th October 18:05

[Zad]

Maybe a limit of 1MB or so would be better than an image size? Or perhaps some sort of user configuration option?

(1920x1200 here)

[4hero]

1920x1200 here also on the main PC. 1280x1024 on the laptops, 1024x768 on the mac and tv and 480x320 (or 320x480 depending on how you are holding it) on the iPod touch .

8meg broadband, although it's really 5meg+

Edited by 4hero on Saturday 4th October 18:53

[F_M-R2]

I think the files size when downloadng is more of a turn for people that the actually size on screen. I dont see a huge problem with the size thats there now. Alot of people post links to higher res anyway.

[flat-planedCrank]

1600x1200 here, but I don't run the browser full-screen either - probably 2/3rd width.

(in fact, if sites use javascript to maximise the window they get closed asap )



Cheers.

[Dogsey]

1680 x 1050 at home and 1024 x 768 at work. Broadband on both.

Surely this whole thing is irrelevant though, unless PH is going to re-code their forum software to get rid of the 750px squish.

[rsv gone!]

1920 x 1200 here

[GetCarter]

blimey... someone here is 800x600

[Simpo Two]

LukeBird said:

No 1280x1024?

Quite, I have two of them.

I also have broadband, but when threads have loads of massive images on them I simply click away. You can't even start reading the words because every time a picture loads the screen jumps down - and down - and down - highly annoying. Images wider that 750px will be crunched by PH and look jaggy, so if you're trying to impress people, you're wasting your time and theirs.

It's not a question of 'I've got 50Gbit broadband so I won't bother to resize anything', it's a question of making your stuff as easily viewable as possible on the forum. No matter how impressively big your image is, it will only appear 758 pixels wide here, so anything over (say) 200Kb is simply pointless. An image 4000px wide will load slowly and look poor, but an image 750px wide and nicely resharpened will look better and load quickly.

I expect I'll get flamed but I had 4p left to spend and you got it

[cirks]

Simpo Two said:

I expect I'll get flamed but I had 4p left to spend and you got it

I agree - if anything is worth seeing "big" then why can't people just put a link to it? The 750(ish) size is fine for a forum and if I want to use my broadband to download a big image of someone else's shot then I'll just click on their link or ask them for a high res version. I really don't think the 750 is really ruining anyone's shots (except mine of course which would all be perfect if it wasn't for this silly PH software )

[RobDickinson]

1680x1050 here - broadband.

I dont mind the 800px rule if we get links to larger versions.

[Bernie-the-bolt]

RobDickinson said:

1680x1050 here - broadband.

I dont mind the 800px rule if we get links to larger versions.

+1

[fathomfive]

Broadband.

Browsing machine: 1200 x 800, wireless connection

Worky machine: 1400 x 900 (I think) and 1900 x 1200, wired connection

I'm happy enough with the current rules on image size on PH. Links to larger images mean that you don't have to go that route if you don't want to.

[nick_bbb]

Something else that has not been mentioned is a printable image. People aren't really going to print a 750 px wide image but if we all start posting up large images you may find them being printed by people you may not have wanted to be printing them for free. Worst still you may not find out.

[SamHH]

I'm also happy with 750 pixel wide images and don't think the rule should be changed.

[_dobbo_]

Zad said:

Maybe a limit of 1MB or so would be better than an image size?

You have to be kidding? Some threads have 30 or 40 photos per page!

I don't care about image dimensions, but I have a big issue with image file size. Waiting for 1MB or bigger images to load isn't something I bother with. When people post several images that size, I wont bother looking at them or commenting.

Edited by _dobbo_ on Sunday 5th October 11:25