Bigger Images?
- LN Strike Eagle
- UKAR Staff
- Posts: 11191
- Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm
Re: Bigger Images?
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.
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!"
Re: Bigger Images?
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
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
- Pen Pusher
- Posts: 7138
- Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 6:34 pm
- Location: St Ives, Cambs
Re: Bigger Images?
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.
Brian
Brian
-
- Posts: 2371
- Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 11:52 am
- Location: elsewehere
Re: Bigger Images?
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.
Re: Bigger Images?
I'd say keep it at 800px but allow us to have 300mb per photo
- Pen Pusher
- Posts: 7138
- Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 6:34 pm
- Location: St Ives, Cambs
Re: Bigger Images?
Jumbojet380 wrote:I'd say keep it at 800px but allow us to have 300mb per photo
300mb?
Brian
Re: Bigger Images?
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!
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?
- steves4ssl
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 5:52 am
Re: Bigger Images?
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.
- LN Strike Eagle
- UKAR Staff
- Posts: 11191
- Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm
Re: Bigger Images?
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!"
Re: Bigger Images?
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.....
Re: Bigger Images?
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!
-
- Posts: 2371
- Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 11:52 am
- Location: elsewehere
Re: Bigger Images?
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?
- LN Strike Eagle
- UKAR Staff
- Posts: 11191
- Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm
-
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 8:10 am
- Location: EGCC 23R 10DME
- Contact:
Re: Bigger Images?
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!)
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!)
- steves4ssl
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 5:52 am
Re: Bigger Images?
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!
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.
- Pat Murphy
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2008, 11:37 pm
- Location: Denbigh, North Wales
Re: Bigger Images?
I prefer the bigger images as well
- LN Strike Eagle
- UKAR Staff
- Posts: 11191
- Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm
Re: Bigger Images?
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!"
Re: Bigger Images?
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?
Re: Bigger Images?
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.
- LN Strike Eagle
- UKAR Staff
- Posts: 11191
- Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm
Re: Bigger Images?
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!"
-
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 8:10 am
- Location: EGCC 23R 10DME
- Contact:
Re: Bigger Images?
Just an aside...the forum can't count
70% of people said Yes, 29% said no.
What about the 1%?!
70% of people said Yes, 29% said no.
What about the 1%?!
Re: Bigger Images?
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.
-
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:09 pm
- Location: The Peoples' Replublic of Croydonia
- Contact:
Re: Bigger Images?
Random wrote:More than 1000 people have voted
Someone can't count.
"Total votes : 128"
-
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 8:10 am
- Location: EGCC 23R 10DME
- Contact:
Re: Bigger Images?
Just can't type I think. I would guess he meant 100 votes.
Strange forum software!
Strange forum software!
Re: Bigger Images?
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!