Miscellaneous Airshows at 1200px (Updated)

[LN Strike Eagle]

Just doing a trial run of 1200px images on the forum - can you let me know how these are for you in terms of size, ease of viewing and download speeds etc?

Images are randoms from various airshow and aviation events I've been to over the last few years - many of them have never been edited before, so hopefully plenty of stuff that you've not all seen before.


BAe Harrier GR7 ZD330 / 11 - 20 (R) Squadron RAF - Southend Airport 2006 by DanGB, on Flickr


BAE Sea Harrier F/A2 ZE690 - RAF Waddington, July 2005 by DanGB, on Flickr


BAe Harrier GR9 ZD437, 4 (AC) Squadron RAF - RAF Cottesmore, December 2010 by DanGB, on Flickr


Hawker Hunter T7 WV318 / G-FFOX - RAF Benson, August 2008 by DanGB, on Flickr


RAF Red Arrows - Fairford 2012 by DanGB, on Flickr


De Havilland Sea Vixen XP924/G-CVIX - Southend Airport 2006 by DanGB, on Flickr


Westland Sea King HAR3A ZH544 - IWM Duxford, October 2012 by DanGB, on Flickr


Pitts Special - North Weald April 2010 by DanGB, on Flickr


McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 68-0342 - Turkish Air Force - RAF Fairford, July 2005 by DanGB, on Flickr


Douglas C-47 Skytrain G-DAKS - IWM Duxford, May 2013 by DanGB, on Flickr


Hawker Siddeley Nimrod R1 XW664 - RAF Waddington, July 2005 by DanGB, on Flickr


Boeing F-15C Eagle 84-0015/LN - RAF Lakenheath, September 2012 by DanGB, on Flickr


BAe Hawk T1 XX263, 208 Squadron RAF - IWM Duxford, October 2012 by DanGB, on Flickr


Westland Lysander G-AZWT - Shuttleworth Collection, October 2011 by DanGB, on Flickr


Gloster Gladiator L8032 / G-AMRK - Shuttleworth Collection, July 2011 by DanGB, on Flickr


Hawker Hurricane Z5140/G-HURI - Historic Aircraft Collection - North Weald, October 2011 by DanGB, on Flickr


BAe Hawk T1 XX263, 208 Squadron RAF - RAF Northolt, March 2010 by DanGB, on Flickr


Jet Provost - North Weald, September 2010 by DanGB, on Flickr


De Havilland Sea Vixen XP924/G-CVIX - Kemble 2007 by DanGB, on Flickr


Hawker Hurricane Z5140/G-HURI - Historic Aircraft Collection - North Weald, October 2009 by DanGB, on Flickr


George Ellis - Shuttleworth Collection by DanGB, on Flickr


Hawker Sea Hurricane 1b Z7015 - Shuttleworth Collection, October August 2009 by DanGB, on Flickr


Hawker Siddeley Dominie T1 XS727 / D - RAF Benson, August 2009 by DanGB, on Flickr


Dassault Mirage 2000C - Biggin Hill, June 2008 by DanGB, on Flickr


BAe Typhoon F2 ZJ922, 3 (F) Squadron RAF - RAF Benson, August 2009 by DanGB, on Flickr


Westland Wessex HU5 XS507 Royal Navy - RAF Benson, August 2008 by DanGB, on Flickr


Panavia Tornado F3 ZG753 - 111 Squadron RAF - Kemble, 2007 by DanGB, on Flickr


Westland Merlin HC3 ZJ125 / J - 28 (AC) Squadron RAF - RAF Benson, August 2006 by DanGB, on Flickr


Panavia Tornado GR4 - Southend Airport, May 2006 by DanGB, on Flickr


North American P-51D Mustang G-SIJJ - Hangar 11 Collection - North Weald, October 2009 by DanGB, on Flickr


BAe Harrier GR9 ZG858, 4 (AC) Squadron RAF - RAF Cottesmore, December 2010 by DanGB, on Flickr


Hawker Hurricane PZ865 - RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, Southend Airport 2006 by DanGB, on Flickr


Supermarine Seafire F Mk XVII SX336 / G-KASX - North Weald, October 2009 by DanGB, on Flickr


Hawker Hurricane Mk I R4118 / G-HUPW - North Weald, October 2009 by DanGB, on Flickr

[Harlequin67]

Some great shots!

All photographs appearing correctly and loading onto screen quickly.

[itfcscott]

They load fine for me too. Some great stuff in there too btw

[MarkL]

1200px FTW. Time to move forward.

[Maisie]

1200px is my favourite size, they look great!

[Blackbird]

They look good to me - and great shots. I do like the Wessex.

Andy

[bigcrow]

Look great Dan, 1200px is the way forward...

[Rule 27]

Look good on my 1440x900 monitor, but still a bit small at 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 (although everything looks small at the latter )

[phreakf4]

Works well and loads reasonably quickly on my system too. I do like the last shot - the "moody" Vacher Hurricane.

[Mooshie1956]

I have a 22" monitor running at 1680x1080.
Quality great.
Loading Quick.
Size on screen, well if I ctrl & scroll and have tiny writing I get the picture in, but if I scroll out so I can read the thread and other threads OK the picture become to large in height (only by about 1/4" and no description). Accepted that this is a personal problem due to failing sight with age, it could also be a problem for others that need to wear glasses for reading. It doesn't in any way distract from the quality of the photo's but again personal preference is to see the whole picture without scrolling.

[centaurus18]

Have a smaller monitor which is reducing the size to 1046px to 697 px but with a magifier option.
The quality on the reduced images doesn't seem to have diminished a great deal either.

[LN Strike Eagle]

Thanks for the feedback so far chaps - looks like 1200px is pretty unanimous. We'll revise the forum guidelines to suit in due course.

Look good on my 1440x900 monitor, but still a bit small at 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 (although everything looks small at the latter )

I'm running 1920x1080 on my PC and it looks fine at this size, which is why I thought I'd try it. Needs to be a balance between ease of use, download speeds and also how large people would want to upload - we could have huge dimensions with the image resizer installed, but I doubt many people would be willing to put 1600px images or more online without huge watermarks etc.

I have a 22" monitor running at 1680x1080.
Quality great.
Loading Quick.
Size on screen, well if I ctrl & scroll and have tiny writing I get the picture in, but if I scroll out so I can read the thread and other threads OK the picture become to large in height (only by about 1/4" and no description). Accepted that this is a personal problem due to failing sight with age, it could also be a problem for others that need to wear glasses for reading. It doesn't in any way distract from the quality of the photo's but again personal preference is to see the whole picture without scrolling.

The images should be automatically resized to suit your screen res if they don't fit your resolution, and you can view them at their full size by clicking on the magnifying glass at the top left of each image, as per centaurus18's post above.

[Ledhead27]

Look fine to me on my mobile, great set of images too

[Hatstand]

Page loads very noticably slower than "normal", which is strange given my connection speed. Maybe it's a flickr thing?

My PC is hooked up to two monitors, one is 1280x1024 the other is 1920x1080 (widescreen).

I favour having my web browser maximised on the 1280x1024 screen, because readability suffers on the widescreen. (Lines become too long. There's a good reason books and magazines are in printed portrait orientation, and often with lines in narrow columns instead of full-page-width!).

On that screen, 1024 images fit nicely and do not get clipped or scaled.
But the 1200 images get clipped at the right-hand side.

I can have a wider browser window on the 1920 screen, and see the images without clipping or scaling... but then my browser window is well beyond what I consider comfortable for reading.

Not a huge problem, but I would consider it bit of nuisance (moving browser and/or resizing).

[LN Strike Eagle]

Which browser do you use? They shouldn't be clipped - we have a mod installed to scale images that are oversize for smaller resolutions and it's working for me in IE and on my phone.

[RichPittman]

Brilliant set Dan
Loaded really fast

[Hatstand]

Which browser do you use? They shouldn't be clipped - we have a mod installed to scale images that are oversize for smaller resolutions and it's working for me in IE and on my phone.

Firefox. With addons that prevent web pages doing anything I don't specifically allow them to. Consequently there is no resizing - if my browser window is not big enough, they get clipped.

I would hate images getting automatically scaled anyway, on a site like this: the photographers are likely to post-process for optimal sharpness when viewed 100% at the required (reduced) size. As soon as it is automatically scaled... whether by the browser or by the site... their work is undone to some degree. And I also wouldn't want to click "zoom" on every image.

[LN Strike Eagle]

Which browser do you use? They shouldn't be clipped - we have a mod installed to scale images that are oversize for smaller resolutions and it's working for me in IE and on my phone.

Firefox. With addons that prevent web pages doing anything I don't specifically allow them to. Consequently there is no resizing - if my browser window is not big enough, they get clipped.

I would hate images getting automatically scaled anyway, on a site like this: the photographers are likely to post-process for optimal sharpness when viewed 100% at the required (reduced) size. As soon as it is automatically scaled... whether by the browser or by the site... their work is undone to some degree. And I also wouldn't want to click "zoom" on every image.

Right, so there's no problem with the forum, it's your preference that's causing you issues...? Not much I can do about that - the majority are in favour of the change and the facility is there to help people viewing on a smaller resolution.

The rescaling mod works very well, and you can still view full size images in a full screen overlay by clicking the magnifying glass. Give it a try.

[strangelookingalien]

Was there Wessexes in service as recently as 2009?

[LN Strike Eagle]

Was there Wessexes in service as recently as 2009?

No, it wasn't in service. I think it was a ground instruction or preserved airframe that was put out on the static line at the Families Day.

Couple of errors in that caption too actually. It should be XS507, and it was 2008.

[Hatstand]

the majority are in favour of the change

Oh? Is there a survey somewhere that I missed?
Or do you mean the majority of people who both read and replied to this thread?

Seriously though, I seem to recall that the idea of allowing bigger images than 1024 has been raised before, but last time the decision was to stick with 1024. What changed? Do most people have better hardware and connectivity now? Higher expectations or "industry standards"?

The rescaling mod works very well, and you can still view full size images in a full screen overlay by clicking the magnifying glass. Give it a try.

Well, my browser was able to do that anyway, if I wanted.

As I said, just a minor inconvenience that I'll get used to, or work around.
But I felt it my duty to mention any issues, no matter how small :-D

[LN Strike Eagle]

the majority are in favour of the change

Oh? Is there a survey somewhere that I missed?
Or do you mean the majority of people who both read and replied to this thread?

Seriously though, I seem to recall that the idea of allowing bigger images than 1024 has been raised before, but last time the decision was to stick with 1024. What changed? Do most people have better hardware and connectivity now? Higher expectations or "industry standards"? D

Last time it was raised was 2011. I thought it might be an idea to increase the size to go with our revised rules that we'll be ruling out - the staff team agreed, as have a majority in this thread.

Internet speeds are getting faster all the time, monitors get bigger and are most commonly widescreen these days and many more people now use flickr rather than photobucket, which does allow for these high res images.

Nobody is forced to upload at the larger size, but for those who wish to use it, I thought it was worth testing the water - of those who have responded, a quick tally suggests it's 11 in favour to 2 against, and they're both from people who have customised their browsing experience.

[Hatstand]

a quick tally suggests it's 11 in favour to 2 against

Um, are you counting me as one of those 2?

I am not against. Despite minor issues I am somewhere between "indifferent" and "in favour"

[Shocman]

Very wonderful selection!!!
I like especially the Hawker Hunter and Nimrod shots

Greetings from Chile!
Shocman

[RichPittman]

Airliners and Airfighters allow 1200px
It would be much simpler to have 1200 px here too

Rich