Orpington Astronomical Society

Astronomy => Astrophotography => Topic started by: Rick on Apr 19, 2010, 14:01:24

Title: Image sizes
Post by: Rick on Apr 19, 2010, 14:01:24
Folks, I know that huge images look better on the big flash monitors you all have these days, but please only post links to anything much over (say) 1024x1024, if only to save all our readers' download bandwidth... At least that way folks have a choice whether or not to look at the huge image.
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: Mike on Apr 19, 2010, 18:02:25
Can you force a maximum size Rick ?
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: Rick on Apr 19, 2010, 18:18:31
I was rather hoping I'd not have to enforce a limit, because posting an over-sized image might, very occasionally, be justified, but there are limits that could be applied...
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: Rocket Pooch on Apr 19, 2010, 19:15:28
why?
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: Rick on Apr 19, 2010, 19:33:48
Because.

Ok...

Average browser window size is probably around 1200 wide, and a bit less high, and anyone reading the forum on a netbook is going to be using something smaller. The forum formatting pinches a couple of hundred pixels off the width, so the average person's going to be seeing scrollbars on the images if they get much over a thousand pixels in height or width. Also some folks might like to read the forum via 3G (or even 2G) mobile networks, and mobile tarrifs often have some level of bandwidth fair-use limits, even if they don't actually charge per megabyte. Throw in the possibility of folks reading the forum while they're data-roaming, and per-megabyte charges quite likely do apply. Even if they don't, a multi-megabyte image will take a while to download. Putting a link rather than inserting the full-sized image gives folks a choice whether to download and view it or not.
Title: Re: Image sizes - Size Matters
Post by: mickw on Jan 10, 2011, 21:58:12
When you post an image at a forum friendly size and you have a full sized image on another site - PLEASE post a link to it.

It would be nice to see your image in all it's glory  ;)
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: doug on Mar 21, 2011, 07:55:09
Were my backyard and moon images the correct size ..... he said ..... just to find out?????

Doug.
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: Rick on Mar 21, 2011, 10:41:05
Were my backyard and moon images the correct size ..... he said ..... just to find out?????

They didn't cause horizontal scroll bars on my screen, so I'd say they were fine. You could probably have posted ones 50% bigger and they'd still have been sensible.
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: Rick on Sep 26, 2012, 09:43:13
When you're posting images for folks to see on the forum it's worth considering how they look in the context of the forum itself. If your image is too wide or too high then it'll need scrolling to see the whole thing, possibly both left-right and up-down, and that reduces its initial impact considerably. Assuming folks are using a fairly average sized screen to read the forum, the optimum size for an image to display in the forum is probably no larger than about 1200x900 to allow for all the scroll bars and so on.

Obviously, to fully appreciate some of the images, it's worth also linking to a full-sized version.

If you use the Gallery then the "normal" image is a good size for including in a forum post, while the original size is the one to give a link to...
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: Carole on Sep 26, 2012, 11:07:13
Sometimes can't get the whole image on the screen (for example Julian's today), so I just reduce the screen size to 75% (or in this case 50%).  But would always like to have a link to the larger size file.

Carole
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: mickw on Sep 26, 2012, 12:40:56
Just resize the image before uploading
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: Carole on Sep 26, 2012, 13:35:55
I find the gallery won't accept mine unless I reduce the size anyway.

Carole
Title: Re: Image sizes
Post by: Mike on Sep 27, 2012, 06:54:38
Yeah there have been a lot of huge images posted recently. A smaller size with a link to the larger would be much appreciated.