Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 600 vs. 1000 pixels
|
|
| Tony T |
Posted on 07-04-2008 14:37
|
 Member Location: Posts: 661 Joined: 08.02.07 |
Pierre Duhem wrote: "Jorge, You should nevertheless apply the rule about the 600 pixels width." in response to a 1000 pixel wide image See: HERE A small monitor that will not let you see images at full size if these images are greater than about 600 px wide. I use Microsoft Windows Explorer 7 to open Diptera.info. At the bottom of the screen there is a size icon that allows for a page to be scaled from 50%-400%. Thus Jorge' s 1000 px image can easily be scaled down to 500 px. One gets a better image by scaling down from large to small rather than scaling up from small to large. |
|
|
|
| conopid |
Posted on 07-04-2008 15:54
|
 Member Location: Posts: 1039 Joined: 02.07.04 |
I'm all for the bigger images, but we need to think of the costs of hosting the bigger file sizes, so we (Paul) would probably not want too many of them.
Nigel Jones, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom |
|
|
|
| Tony T |
Posted on 07-04-2008 16:15
|
|
Member Location: Posts: 661 Joined: 08.02.07 |
This is getting out of my limited expertise; but isn't file size a function of the number of bytes? We are allowed a max of 200Kb. Does it make any difference if the image is 600px wide or 2000px wide and yet both are less than 200Kb? In this case the 600px could have a higher JPG quality than the 2000px image. |
|
|
|
| ChrisR |
Posted on 07-04-2008 18:18
|
 Administrator Location: Posts: 7699 Joined: 12.07.04 |
JPG image size is dependent on the original image size and the amount of compression given to the data. The image dimensions and colour depth obviously have a large impact on the file size but if the file can be compressed heavily then it will give a smaller file size. Images that contain large contigous blocks of similar colours usually compress very well but images with lots of fine detail and strong contrasting colours do not  So, yes - it is possible to have a highly compressed 1024x768 pixel image that is smaller on disk than an almost raw 640x480 pixel image 
Edited by ChrisR on 07-04-2008 18:20 |
 |
|
| Paul Beuk |
Posted on 07-04-2008 19:12
|
 Super Administrator Location: Posts: 19208 Joined: 11.05.04 |
It may be that the next version of the content management system has a solution for these wider images, but still I'd prefer the smaller size (pixel-wise). I am not certain how that would work out, but Firefox has a nice image zoom extension that will allow you to increase the size of images as they are displayed. On higher resolution images I have used this succesfully to see more details but also to reduce some blownup images in size because images that do not have enough resolution to be blown up can actually show more detail when they are decreased in size. Don't worry about the server load yet. I only notice the problem when I am making my backups on a local hard drive, but since that backup is incremental I only notice each image once. Paul - - - - Paul Beuk on https://diptera.info |
|
|
|
| ChrisR |
Posted on 07-04-2008 23:34
|
|
Administrator Location: Posts: 7699 Joined: 12.07.04 |
It would be very easy to resize any incoming image to a predetermined maximum dimensions - I have written the code many times for various sites ... but I wouldn't like to explore the inner depths of php-fusion  |
|
|
|
| pierred |
Posted on 08-04-2008 06:42
|
 Member Location: Posts: 1413 Joined: 21.04.05 |
Hello, Chris Raper wrote: It would be very easy to resize any incoming image to a predetermined maximum dimensions - I have written the code many times for various sites ... but I wouldn't like to explore the inner depths of php-fusion This would naturally be the best solution. On our French forum, a click on the displayed pictures displays the real size and a new click returns to the 600 (or is it 550 ? I don't remember off my head) pixels version. Pierre Duhem |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum: |