Druchii.net
http://www.druchii.net/phpBB3/

Maximum Picture Size rule, P&M
http://www.druchii.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=63033
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Sarcon [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Maximum Picture Size rule, P&M

I think the rule for maximum size pictures can change about now. There's new technology, and computers aren't as they were like 2-4 years ago. Most people use high screen resolutions nowadays with larger monitors (19"+), so I guess the screen resolution can be raised to 1024x768 (would be roughly the size of a 17" screen). I decided to add a public poll to make things easier for the mods to see what the people around Druchii.net think.

Author:  Mr_piechee [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:44 am ]
Post subject: 

The point isn't that people can view bigger images, its that they shouldn't view them in a forum. Personally I think 800*600 is far too big. If you want to show a large image link to it else where. Most the time large images have too much background and it could easily be cropped to show subject much better.


[edit] and its funny you should say that most people are viewing the forum on large screens, because this is more likely to be further from the truth. More people are viewing the forum on phones and net books, so are using smaller screens. Typically family computers are now laptops, and so have 15.4" or smaller screens.

Author:  Layne [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree with PieChee, I use a laptop and the 800x600 is about right. Bigger images do things to the tables that are illegal in civilised nations.

Author:  Mr. anderson [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Also, the problem would not be the resolution as much as bandwidth. It takes forever to load images with dial-up and not all places have broadband internet available. And if someone uploads 10 1600*900 images, even a broadband connection is going to take its time.

HUZZAH!

Author:  Dalamar [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

I vote for 640x480 max size <.<

Author:  Rork [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Once you factor in the column with poster name etc. in, 1024x768 is actually too big for the average 17" (or some such) monitor.

You should be able to work with 800x600 pixels very easily. It's quite big and you can resize it (just use the features in Windows).

Author:  Brad [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dalamar wrote:
I vote for 640x480 max size <.<


And 256 colours!

Author:  Dalamar [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

256? O.o 16!

Author:  Rork [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think we can divide this into 10 groups of people: Those who want monochrome and those who don't.

Author:  Dalamar [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well done Rork! :D

Author:  Arquinsiel [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

Actually, a related possibility is the addition of [timg][/timg] tags which would essentially be a javascript "resize" function for anything that would break tables and increase them to fullsize on click. I've seen it around, but I don't know what the workload in implementing it is like.

Author:  Brad [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:55 am ]
Post subject: 

I remember the days of black, white, cyan and magenta. Bleah :(

Author:  Sarcon [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Mr. Anderson wrote:
Also, the problem would not be the resolution as much as bandwidth. It takes forever to load images with dial-up and not all places have broadband internet available. And if someone uploads 10 1600*900 images, even a broadband connection is going to take its time.

HUZZAH!


What? No broadband!? Where are you from? The north pole? Here in Northern Europe almost everyone has DSL/Broadband available. It's a matter of subscribing or not.

Author:  Red... [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Here in Northern Europe


Northern Europe? Do you mean Brettonia, Albion and the Empire? What planet are you on? XD

Author:  Arquinsiel [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sarcon wrote:
Mr. Anderson wrote:
Also, the problem would not be the resolution as much as bandwidth. It takes forever to load images with dial-up and not all places have broadband internet available. And if someone uploads 10 1600*900 images, even a broadband connection is going to take its time.

HUZZAH!


What? No broadband!? Where are you from? The north pole? Here in Northern Europe almost everyone has DSL/Broadband available. It's a matter of subscribing or not.
Yeah... that's not true. Sorry dude.

Author:  Layne [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:54 am ]
Post subject: 

In Northern Europe there is something like 300 million people to cover the cost of wire, hub server and router upgrades. In Australia which is like 14 times the size of Europe, there is 25 million people or thereabouts. It's difficult to justify the outlay, so in most parts of Australia, geographically speaking, there is no broadband.

Upgrading the networks with the use of public funds was a major promise in the most recent federal elections here. This, you see, in the place where optic fibre was invented. We Aussies invent all this excellent stuff, but we can't bloody afford it.

Author:  Mr. anderson [ Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

In addition to what Layne said... I do have lot of friends whose parents have not bothered with broadband for some reason (affording it might be one of the issues, for example). On top of that, I know a lot of students that have to go to the library to get internet.). I live in Oz too, by the way and things are a little different here.

HUZZAH!

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/