|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
| View Poll Results: What max. image size do you prefer for attached photos? | |||
| "size doesn't matter" |
   
|
1 | 4.55% |
| 800 x 600 or smaller |
  
|
4 | 18.18% |
| 1024 x 768 (XGA) |
  
|
5 | 22.73% |
| 1600 x 1200 plus |
  
|
2 | 9.09% |
| "bigger is always better" |
  
|
10 | 45.45% |
| Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 26th, 2006, 12:33 PM
|
#1 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Image attachment size preference?
I took some heat elsewhere on the net (location not important) concerning the size of some images of the RED One camera which I took at CineGear this past weekend. The comment was something like "the images are too big for a computer screen." I made those images large on purpose, figuring that most folks would prefer them that way. But now I've got to ask, what maximum image size would you rather see on this site? What isn't too big to be annoying. We're sticking with clickable thumbnails for now, so these images won't appear inline at full size... instead they open in a new window.
Please vote in the poll and post your comments as desired. We'll just assume that video frame grabs would be posted in their native res, i.e. 720 x 480, 1280 x 720, 1920 x 1080 etc. Thanks in advance, |
|
|
|
June 26th, 2006, 04:01 PM
|
#2 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brookline, MA
Posts: 1,447
|
Maybe you could institute a system similar to dpreview wherein oversized images are "framed", so you can easily scroll without disturbing the layout of the page.
|
|
|
|
|
June 26th, 2006, 04:29 PM
|
#3 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. John's, NL, Canada
Posts: 416
|
Bigger is better, I think you made the right call Chris. Keep the file size sensible and everything should be alright with as much res as possible.
I'm previewing Windows vista and I have XP, so that means I'm running IE6, IE7, and Firefox 1.5 and they all autoresize the picture in the browser so I don't know what people would complain about. No reason to run older browsers on a PC and I'm guessing safari would have the same thing, though I haven't used it in a long long time. (I'm a firefox person) I apperciate the pictures, the size was fine and quality was fine for the size.
__________________
www.engr.mun.ca/~wakeham/index.htm |
|
|
|
|
July 3rd, 2009, 11:23 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxford (UK) and Vrindavana (India)
Posts: 118
|
Image size
Quote:
This seems to be a appropriate solution. As far as the resolution of the image in a new window is concerned, I think its size is conditioned in some ways by the role the image plays in the article or text in general. Perhaps for a general journalistic style 720x480 res would do the job, for more technical approach where more detail is required higher resolution may fit better and for deeper equipment study, positions of buttons, ergonomics, functions etc, full resolution file may be the best bet. This is just a rumbling, hope this helps. Kind regards, Pavel
__________________
The fish is the last to know the water. Last edited by Pavel Tomanec; July 3rd, 2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason: grammar |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
