Are we still restricted to 800 pixel wide photos?
No, but be sure you at least compress them so thy aren’t too big in bytes. Everything I post lately is 2048 pixels wide. The forum software will automatically downsize it to fit the width of the window you have open.
A lot of people with slow Internet will not appreciate big (in total bytes) pictures… pixels really don’t matter to a certain degree, that over a certain size the forum software resizes it, BUT high resolution pictures tend to be larger in size (byte count).
Always remember that the “size” of a picture has actually 2 different dimensions, the physical/display size in pixels (or DPI), and the storage space it uses (in Bytes).
Greg
My 2048 pixel wide photos run about 3-400K bytes with moderate compression. Older photos were uploaded at 1024 and they averaged about 200K bytes. I don’t think that is too large unless you are trying to load a big picture thread on dial-up. I’m pretty sure that super slow internet is all but gone these days. Even crappy broadband is running better than 5Mbps. I have entry level cable broadband and it’s 50Mbps.
The advantage of higher resolution pictures is that they can be viewed full size if desired. I use my old threads as reference and I’m often glad that I can see small details.
Yes, and the amount of storage space it uses is real important if you are storing them in your freight shed. You can store 5 or 10 full screen, high resolution pictures in your shed, or a couple of hundred lower resolution, 800 pixel wide pictures. On the screen, unless you go for really low resolution, reducing the resolution doesn’t matter much.
Let’s just agree to disagree on this. To me; low resolution photos aren’t worth the bother to look at. I hear you on storage space. I pay for hosting and have unlimited storage, so that is not an issue for me.
I use 800 x 600 on my site, but keep the jpg compression set to highest quality… so the pictures are not small in storage space.
Greg
Jon Radder said:
My 2048 pixel wide photos run about 3-400K bytes with moderate compression. Older photos were uploaded at 1024 and they averaged about 200K bytes. I don’t think that is too large unless you are trying to load a big picture thread on dial-up. I’m pretty sure that super slow internet is all but gone these days. Even crappy broadband is running better than 5Mbps. I have entry level cable broadband and it’s 50Mbps.
I live in the sticks. Frontier advertises 5Mbps, but it isn’t even 1Mbps. No other choice.
I pretty much bypass posts with high res pictures. My connection is just too slow.
Tom
Jon Radder said:
Let’s just agree to disagree on this. To me; low resolution photos aren’t worth the bother to look at. I hear you on storage space. I pay for hosting and have unlimited storage, so that is not an issue for me.
Ok John. Yes, if the resolution is too low, then I agree with you. But for most of our threads, super HD isn’t really required.
Since I use the freight shed, space is a concern for me. This picture has been “adjusted” so its only 193k.
But you don’t have to bother looking at it. (https://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
I have been using 640 X 480 , and in some resizing presets that size is available…,
I didn’ realize the new software auto adjusted them. Thanks for the info.
OK, I can see that those pictures have a lot of compression… but maybe not all people notice.
On my site, I go for the minimum compression, because usually my pictures need the detail
The following picture is only 800 x 600, but 172k… notice the detail if you zoom in on it, vs. the previous 2 pictures.
I can see the difference in sharpness, like “better focus”… but maybe you don’t see the difference.
Like the difference in sound systems, to some people they all sound the same, and to some there is a marked difference between the $150 systems and the $200 systems.
I think this is an argument you can never “win” with everyone.
Since the photo attachment is a bit cumbersome here, I always upload my photos to imgur, and then embed them in my forum posts. When I embed them, I specify 800 pixels wide, but clicking on it opening in a new window will reveal the full resolution image. Here’s an example:
David Maynard said:
Jon Radder said:
Let’s just agree to disagree on this. To me; low resolution photos aren’t worth the bother to look at. I hear you on storage space. I pay for hosting and have unlimited storage, so that is not an issue for me.
Ok John. Yes, if the resolution is too low, then I agree with you. But for most of our threads, super HD isn’t really required.
Since I use the freight shed, space is a concern for me. This picture has been “adjusted” so its only 193k.
But you don’t have to bother looking at it. (https://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
I would not consider 800 x 1063 as low resolution - It’s higher res than the 1024 x 768 pictures that I post and at 193K I don’t think our slow internet guys would consider it small either. I think it’s perfectly acceptable and a good looking image - not over compressed at all.
Or you could just embed a crappy video because you had the wrong lens on and forgot to turn off auto focus on a very windy day. Then review the video and wonder why Hollywood left his camera on a stump when there were all kinds of women walking around ?
On a side note if you just right click the “You Tube” video image and copy the embed code then you can click on the tool bar here and click embed video. However you must be on the HTTPS and not HTTP. Pretty simple to me but we were talking picture size.
Greg Elmassian said:
OK, I can see that those pictures have a lot of compression… but maybe not all people notice.
On my site, I go for the minimum compression, because usually my pictures need the detail
The following picture is only 800 x 600, but 172k… notice the detail if you zoom in on it, vs. the previous 2 pictures.
I can see the difference in sharpness, like “better focus”… but maybe you don’t see the difference.
Like the difference in sound systems, to some people they all sound the same, and to some there is a marked difference between the $150 systems and the $200 systems.
I think this is an argument you can never “win” with everyone.
Greg, yes I see the crisp focus and sharp details, and for some pictures that is needed. But for most of our shots, a bit less resolution is fine. And I agree, not everyone perceives pictures (or sound) the same way. Since I am in the business of full colour printers, I know all too well that different people perceive pictures differently.
Most of my pictures taken for online use, are taken at 1 megapixel. But pictures I take for my personal use, I take at 6 megs, the highest setting of my not so new camera.
As for winning, I don’t try and win much anymore, I just try and break even most of the time. (https://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)