Bigger Images?

Announcements from UK Airshow Review and our partners

Bigger Images?

Yes, I want to see bigger pics on UKAR
136
35%
Yes, I want to see bigger pics on UKAR
136
35%
No, I like things the way they are
56
15%
No, I like things the way they are
56
15%
 
Total votes: 384

User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff
Posts: 11191
Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by LN Strike Eagle »

900px still doesn't fit at 1024 res.

Pete made the avatar column narrower when we launched the forum last year. The problem isn't so much the avatar column, it's that it doesn't give you a scroll bar if the images are oversize for your res - it just cuts them off. Ikonboard would just give you a scroll bar to see the rest of the image.

I've found a mod that should help out with this, but me and Nick need to have a look at how we install mods and learn about it all - neither of us have ever used PHPBB3 before. Pete set all this up.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"

Copper2
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu 02 Apr 2009, 7:59 am

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Copper2 »

Ive always saved at image size 10 on PS
12 is the largest
Just looiking at some gazelles usl i have saved at 1200px the file sizes are 197,277 and 282 so at 1024 there shoudnt be a problem on size of file

User avatar
Pen Pusher
Posts: 7138
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 6:34 pm
Location: St Ives, Cambs

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Pen Pusher »

This is what the test shot looks like on my 16in CRT in a screen grab with resolution set at 1152, which was the next size down I had from 1024.

Image

Brian
The Future Of Photography Is Mirrorless

DfG on Facebook
BAMPhotography on Facebook

Manonthefence
Posts: 2371
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 11:52 am
Location: elsewehere

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Manonthefence »

The problem with increasing the size is that a number of sites will still have a 800 px limit. I'm not editing two sets of shots one for UKAR one for everyone else.

PeterR
Posts: 4841
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:43 pm

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by PeterR »

I'd say keep it at 800px but allow us to have 300mb per photo :smile:

User avatar
Pen Pusher
Posts: 7138
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 6:34 pm
Location: St Ives, Cambs

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Pen Pusher »

Jumbojet380 wrote:I'd say keep it at 800px but allow us to have 300mb per photo :smile:


300mb? :shock:

Brian
The Future Of Photography Is Mirrorless

DfG on Facebook
BAMPhotography on Facebook

User avatar
TonyO
Posts: 2680
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:16 pm
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by TonyO »

Nick, upping the size limit on the photies doesn't mean everyone has to post at 1000 px across, it will just give give people the option to do so if they wish!

But why anyone would want a 300kb 800x600 is beyond me and my tiny brain!
Do you want the Aladeen news or the Aladeen news?

User avatar
steves4ssl
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 5:52 am

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by steves4ssl »

Another option would be to force the images to display at a smaller size of say 400 wide (effectively a preview) or even at the current 800 wide, with each "preview" clickable to open the image at the real resolution in a separate window.

User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff
Posts: 11191
Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by LN Strike Eagle »

steves4ssl wrote:Another option would be to force the images to display at a smaller size of say 400 wide (effectively a preview) or even at the current 800 wide, with each "preview" clickable to open the image at the real resolution in a separate window.

This is what we're looking at.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"

User avatar
phreakf4
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 9:42 pm

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by phreakf4 »

TonyO wrote:...But why anyone would want a 300kb 800x600 is beyond me and my tiny brain!...


Because less compression equals higher quality?
nothing is confirmed at a show until its u/c hits the tarmac or it is running in for its display.....

User avatar
Lumix
Posts: 2034
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Burgess Hill, West Sussex

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Lumix »

Manonthefence wrote:The problem with increasing the size is that a number of sites will still have a 800 px limit. I'm not editing two sets of shots one for UKAR one for everyone else.


Maybe not, but those of us that submit to other databases have the opposite problem. One of the reasons I don't post on UKAR as often as I used to is that I can't be ar*ed downsizing to 800 wide! :biggrin:

Manonthefence
Posts: 2371
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 11:52 am
Location: elsewehere

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Manonthefence »

LN Strike Eagle wrote:
steves4ssl wrote:Another option would be to force the images to display at a smaller size of say 400 wide (effectively a preview) or even at the current 800 wide, with each "preview" clickable to open the image at the real resolution in a separate window.

This is what we're looking at.

Airshowbuzz do that. Wanna guess why I dont post there?

User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff
Posts: 11191
Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by LN Strike Eagle »

Because it's American? :wink:
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"

Chris.Globe
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 8:10 am
Location: EGCC 23R 10DME
Contact:

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Chris.Globe »

For the record, works fine at 1280x800 on my laptop, so another vote for 1024px wide images :)


Anyone who has a monitor 15in or larger, your native resolution is 1280x1024, you'll find your monitor performs far better at, or above, that resolution :) (It's supposed to save energy as well, but I doubt that bit!)
Cheers,
Chris Globe – http://chrisglobe.com
World Museums Editor – http://freebirddb.com

User avatar
steves4ssl
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 5:52 am

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by steves4ssl »

Lumix wrote:
Manonthefence wrote:The problem with increasing the size is that a number of sites will still have a 800 px limit. I'm not editing two sets of shots one for UKAR one for everyone else.


Maybe not, but those of us that submit to other databases have the opposite problem. One of the reasons I don't post on UKAR as often as I used to is that I can't be ar*ed downsizing to 800 wide! :biggrin:


Pretty much the same with me. All the photos I show on my website or post on the other forums are between 900 and 1000 wide. My shots from Britcars had to be resized to 800 specifically for UKAR and for some of the events I just can't be bothered doing it twice - once for UKAR and once for everything else.

User avatar
Pat Murphy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2008, 11:37 pm
Location: Denbigh, North Wales

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Pat Murphy »

I prefer the bigger images as well :smile:

User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff
Posts: 11191
Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by LN Strike Eagle »

Had a look at that airshowbuzz forum Nick - the one we're looking at is a lot better than that.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"

User avatar
TonyO
Posts: 2680
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:16 pm
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by TonyO »

I don't think clicking thumbnails to see a larger version is particularly effective, it's just more hassle for users and you're loading two sets of images, the thumbnail and then the full size. It's certainly not how I imagined this proceeding.
Do you want the Aladeen news or the Aladeen news?

User avatar
Ben H
UKAR Supporter
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 4:04 pm
Location: Reigate, UK
Contact:

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Ben H »

The plan is more like the Lightbox style we have on the main website, yet where the images are resized down automatically to 800px, and clicking them will give 1024px.

User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff
Posts: 11191
Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by LN Strike Eagle »

TonyO wrote:I don't think clicking thumbnails to see a larger version is particularly effective, it's just more hassle for users and you're loading two sets of images, the thumbnail and then the full size. It's certainly not how I imagined this proceeding.

Not with what we're looking at. It creates the "thumbnail" (which will be 800px) from the original, so when you click the image to see the bigger version there's no waiting.

Like I said earlier, we've gotta find a compromise. Yeah, lots of people want bigger pics, but we can't just ignore the people who don't, nor can we ignore what the stats are telling us and ruin the experience for 22% of traffic (more than that actually, because we also have to take into account people running 1152 res, as Brian illustrated).
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"

Chris.Globe
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 8:10 am
Location: EGCC 23R 10DME
Contact:

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Chris.Globe »

Just an aside...the forum can't count :P


70% of people said Yes, 29% said no.


What about the 1%?! :grin:
Cheers,
Chris Globe – http://chrisglobe.com
World Museums Editor – http://freebirddb.com

User avatar
Ben H
UKAR Supporter
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 4:04 pm
Location: Reigate, UK
Contact:

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Ben H »

More than 1000 people have voted, ergo each vote is worth less than 1% so some rounding down has gone on to get a whole number.

Rob Leigh
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:09 pm
Location: The Peoples' Replublic of Croydonia
Contact:

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Rob Leigh »

Random wrote:More than 1000 people have voted



Someone can't count.

"Total votes : 128"

Chris.Globe
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 8:10 am
Location: EGCC 23R 10DME
Contact:

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by Chris.Globe »

Just can't type I think. I would guess he meant 100 votes.

Strange forum software! :grin:
Cheers,
Chris Globe – http://chrisglobe.com
World Museums Editor – http://freebirddb.com

User avatar
747woody
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 9:53 am

Re: Bigger Images?

Post by 747woody »

Is there a guide anywhere for computer numpties to explain the significance of size etc. As a computer numptie I haven't a clue what you guys are talking about! :sad: