What is the suitable image size for the forum ?

[Okda]

votes 1024 * 768 in thumbnails, then click it for higher res. the perfect solution for everyone !
+1 not to upload to xs. we all want xs to be extremely fast don't we

both are what i really want

[tylerdustin2008]

It doesn't bother me. I like close up detail. Plus i am running dual 24's........

[Ashraf]

All right, when will this poll end? Do you actually expect that one of administrators will make a rule for this?

Let's re-read this quote.

It should depend on what is being shown....for instance, screenshots should be cropped if they're otherwise excessive (2560x1600 screenshots with a single CPUz in the middle for instance ).

However, project pictures should be fairly hi-res if the modder/builder wants it to be....nothing insane like 10MP, but something with a lot detail there.

Other miscellaneous images...well, it all depends on what's being shown really....here's what I mean:
In terms of a prospect for any sort of 'rule'...there will not be a rule on this. Each image is handled on a case-by-case basis....when people don't use compression (on images that can/should be compressed) and you get multi-megabyte images that can be a few hundred KB, or when people post something that's at their camera's native res (if it's a good camera, lol)....then we'll address it. But a max image size limit is fairly rediculous....some things should and can be very large.

There's a reason why some members have high-res cameras and monitors....to be able to capture and view images with a lot of detail....granted we (mostly) don't want 6+MP pictures on XS, but large images should not be shunned if the content of the image is worthwhile.

But this poll is still not over yet? Or are you waiting for FUGGER to say something because he is the owner of this?

[Okda]

i am not waiting for fugger, cause this means a disrespect to Vapor

but i am waiting for more vote that may convince the mods to change their minds and make a rule

anything wrong with that ?

[Ashraf]

Naw, nothing is wrong with that, really. I just thought you would end the poll since Vapor said there will not be a rule on this. He knows his job. Any moderators will not take this poll to add a new rule to the forum policies. However, one of moderators, or you, can ask one of administrators to make a rule on this. Once the staff team has agreed to add a new rule to the policies, then it has to be approved by FUGGER. Although, you made this thread, Vapor has replied to your poll thread.

[Vapor]

I just don't see the point in a steadfast rule...if an image is obscenely large (KB-wise or pixelwise), report it.

But if the rule says 1024x768 and someone posts a 1050x800 size image...it's technically against the rules and they get a warning for something inane like that? The mods get enough crap for warning people for REAL flaming....

On top of that...you'd then get people spamming threads saying: "Your image is 5pixels too big, reduce the size n00b."

Just not what we need here at XS.

Don't get me wrong...I don't have a 2560x1600 monitor or anything...in fact my visible space on my browser is only 1210x710 and my connection isn't great. A lot of the time I'm actually browsing on my mobile's 480x320 (r I think that's the res) screen via EVDO w/ 1-bar (where I work is a radio wave blocker ). I do whole-heartedly believe in a use for larger images though...and shunning them for whatever reason with a locktite rule is just.....I don't know the right word, but I don't like the idea.

I'm not the final say on this....but IMO, a rule for this is....counter-productive for the reasons I listed above. If an image is blatantly oversized, report the post and we'll look at it.

[Top Nurse]

I shoot pics at 1024 768 and typically post at 640 x 480. This posting resolution shows lots of detail and doesn't screw with anyones monitor. If you have a good camera then the detail is in the original pic.

FI this is a 640 x 480 pic:

[Martijn]

But if the rule says 1024x768 and someone posts a 1050x800 size image...it's technically against the rules and they get a warning for something inane like that? The mods get enough crap for warning people for REAL flaming....

I would say that 1024x768 is the max. Of course, you would not be looking into 5 pixels more or less than allowed, but I do think we should have a general guideline. Get the point?

[spainis]

Automatic system which create 1024x768 thrumbnail to orriginal pic and everyone is happy.

Let everthing to be controled by computer and Hello MATRIX

[Ashraf]

Automatic system which create 1024x768 thrumbnail to orriginal pic and everyone is happy.

Let everthing to be controled by computer and Hello MATRIX

That is why I have always wished that FUGGER would like to switch to IPB from vBulletin because IPB can reduce all images to 800 x 600 (or an admin can set a resolution size) automatically. When you click on an image, it would open to show an original size. By the way, IPB is more secure and has better tools for administrators and moderators than vBulletin and phpBB.

[Cupcake]

I shoot pics at 1024 768 and typically post at 640 x 480. This posting resolution shows lots of detail and doesn't screw with anyones monitor. If you have a good camera then the detail is in the original pic.

FI this is a 640 x 480 pic:

YAY , thats what I do

I hate when it takes me 5 mins to load a page

[Fr3ak]

1024*768 is a nice resolution to post pictures. That means no vertically scrolling on a standard 19" TFT.

BUT I also dont think its a good idea to make a rule out of that. There are cases when a larger image is needed to see all the details.
In a thread with many pictures, people should be using 1024*768 in order not to force people to vertically scroll and lose clear view.

[Top Nurse]

That is why I have always wished that FUGGER would like to switch to IPB from vBulletin because IPB can reduce all images to 800 x 600 (or an admin can set a resolution size) automatically.

I'm using vB 3.6.7 and that capability is also configurable in vB.

[AceGoober]

I voted 800x600 because that is what I use as a standard for all forums I frequent.

I won't use anything higher then that unless it is a photography/graphics website.

[Patriote]

I vote for 1280 x 1024 (Or 1280 x 960) for pics posted directly onto the page. And 1600 x 1200 for clickable thumbnail.

[NLight95]

1024x768 gets my vote, even though I'm @1680x1050 ws res. Why waste the bandwidth and host server resources? If the pic's good quality it can always be zoomed in. Firefox users can simply use the ImageZoom add-on/extension.

[xlink]

1600x1200 FTW

I'm agreeing with you.

1680*1050(and up) is becoming more and more common, heck that's what I have

1600*1200 is a nice happy medium, loads fast when slightly compressed and still offer a lot of viewability

for those who run at smaller reses, just press ctrl +scroll wheel bam pics smaller.

[Major_A]

Where's the "I don't give a crap" option? Even my slow as hell cable service can handle pictures easily.

[Kaze06]

Where's the "I don't give a crap" option? Even my slow as hell cable service can handle pictures easily.

That's the button where you don't vote

Personally, 1024x768 is plenty high-res for everyone here. Thumbnails would be nice for anything larger.

Nothing like scrolling down a casemod page to read and being scrolled up 500 times by loading pictures.

[Major_A]

I think the image format is a heck of a lot more important than the size. A 1600 X 1200 .jpg is going to be a lot smaller in file size than a 800 X 600 bmp or png file.

[Vapor]

I think the image format is a heck of a lot more important than the size. A 1600 X 1200 .jpg is going to be a lot smaller in file size than a 800 X 600 bmp or png file.

Eh?

Completely depends on what's in the picture tbh.

Witness:
(jpg)


vs.

(png)


62kb vs. 10kb IIRC.

[Major_A]

Then I'll remove my foot from my mouth.

[Okda]

800x600 is too small imho

[Death^Dread]

800x600 may be small, but dont forget ALL the 1280x1024 users (like me! but not for long, getting 22" widescreen soon)

1024x768 is a good general rule. it rids most of us of side-scrolling, and allows the entire image to be viewed in the screen.

between toolbars etc. on top and the poster info on the left, theres less room than you would think to view pictures on a forum.


I strongly support hosting to sites that allow thumbnailing, and using it. That way when you open someone's project page to view a new update, you dont' have to re-download the first 234987023 huge pictures.

PS: Every time a .png is converted to a .jpg, a [insert your favorite animal here] dies.

[alb@nian]

1024x768 not too small not too big .