Forums image re-sizing software - poll

Ideal image size

  • 1200 pixels wide

    Votes: 7 16.7%
  • 1100 pixels wide

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • 1000 pixels wide

    Votes: 9 21.4%
  • 900 pixels wide

    Votes: 14 33.3%
  • 800 pixels wide

    Votes: 8 19.0%
  • 700 pixels wide

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    42

Zone

Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2001
Messages
7,659
Reaction score
3,452
Points
2,681
Age
56
Location
Barnsley
Morning all

Quickie.

The forums image re-scaling software currently limits image size to 700pixels wide.

I've had a few pm's on the subject and I obviously read the various comments on the forum so understand peoples frustration with it continually changing.

This last change seems to be just that but having spoken with Stuart (site owner) he is happy to tweak the size.

The effect will be forum wide though so the size needs to be sympathetic to the monitor resolutions of all visitors to AVForums and not just the photography forum!

Percentage Resolution Visits in the last month
20.55% 1280x800 927,872
19.14% 1024x768 864,552
16.70% 1280x1024 754,277
11.04% 1680x1050 498,648
10.43% 1440x900 471,119
5.48% 1920x1200 247,655
1.81% 1152x864 81,929
1.46% 1280x768 66,020
1.46% 1920x1080 66,027
1.41% 320x396 63,775

Looking at the above table there are a majority of visitors viewing at resolutions of 1280 and more but lets not forget the almost 1million visitors viewing at less that this.

To this end my thinking is increase the size from the 700 pixel wide limit as it is now to 900 but lets have a little poll to guage people opinions.
 
Last edited:
Well I resize everything to 800 wide now for Flickr as that is what is used on certain other forums but I would like to see an increase in the linked file size from 300k to say 400k.
 
Mike.P®;9518769 said:
I would like to see an increase in the linked file size from 300k to say 400k.

If you haven't noticed Mike I have been a little more relaxed with the file sizes of late, for what it's worth my opinion is 300KB is fine for posting on the forum but anything over 500KB is way OTT ;)
 
Last edited:
I'm not the most technically minded when it comes to stuff like this, but as I understand it, large size on flickr has a width of 1024 and would be viewable by 80% of the forum based on that table.:confused:
Could someone tell me if this is correct before I vote.
 
I was happy with 800 wide but voted 900 as thats what I post on other forum :smashin:

Any larger I think people should link to with a thumbnail imo
 
I voted 900, but I post 500 wide as that's the medium size on flickr. I wonder if allowing really large images will make some of the photo sharing threads very cumbersome though! It can take quite a while to load on a slower connection as it is, can be frustrating to just see an image loading and then it disappears as other huge images further up the page start to load. Even on an 'ok' 1mbit connection can take quite a while for these pages to finish loading.

Should be better when I move to 8mbit, but I'm sure a lot of people don't have that. Possibly a minor concern though!
 
The effect will be forum wide though so the size needs to be sympathetic to the monitor resolutions of all visitors to AVForums and not just the photography forum!

i wonder how many people still run with monitors under 1024*768 nowadays ? , i am voting 900 as well :)
 
My main laptop is 1920x1200 and my travel laptop is 1280x800. Allowing for the column on the left of each thread for poster IDs and avatars I think that even with a 1280x800 monitor the recommended picture size should be no more than 800x800. That also means that such an image would just fit a 1280x800 display in portrait orientation without scrolling.

While I would not be bothered at all by a larger resolution for my main laptop - even 1200x1200 - I think that for the enjoyment of the majority the limit should be 800x800. That's how I shall vote.

p.s. note that the new generation of "720p HD" laptops are coming out with 1368x768 screens, so anything over 800 high is still going to be a PITA for a lot of people, not that I'll be one of them :) 800x800 just seems the sensible choice to me.
 
Last edited:
It can take quite a while to load on a slower connection as it is, can be frustrating to just see an image loading and then it disappears as other huge images further up the page start to load. Even on an 'ok' 1mbit connection can take quite a while for these pages to finish loading.
Even on a fast connection - I'm connected at 8Mbps - images can sometimes take a while to download because some hosting sites are pants.
 
Been doing some testing. Have set the width to 800px which makes the width of the browser Window 1218 pixels wide, which means it will fit in a 1280 resolution.
Beyond this would start crushing the page, so I'm afraid 800 is our limit and I will keep it at that unless the consensus is to have it smaller.
I would like to say that I appreciate the DP community here and I do want to accommodate your needs as much as possible, but the changes made to the website style apply forum wide so the limitations of the wider community have to be considered.
 
Well I was going to vote for 900px but it looks like Stuart has made his decision, which goes completely against the majority :rolleyes:, so I won't bother now. Not having a go at you Si but I don't really think it was worth your time starting this thread.
 
Think 800 should be just fine. Although I can see much larger on my desktop in the house, the vast majority of the time I am accessing via my business laptop, and I would imagine a lot of others would be doing the same. Just my tuppence.
 
For me, 900 px would be ideal, because I also post in other fora, where this resolution is standard.
That would save me the trouble of making and uploading an extra version !

have a nice evening,
Rafael
 
Not having a go at you Si but I don't really think it was worth your time starting this thread.

No worries mate.
At the end of the day it's not my decision but Stuart's and he does have the bigger picture (pun intended) to look at!

As he has said, images larger than 800 pixels "unfortunately" do start to affect the look of the page as you see it.
In my initial talk with him I mentioned 800 as probably being best but changed to 900 simply based on screen resolution, I hadn't taken into account the look of the site in general so 800 it is so let's be happy with that :smashin:

Cheers Stuart :thumbsup:
 
I don't mind the width too much, as long as its not stupidly small, but can you set it how it was before so it resizes the image rather than adding a scroll bar?
 
I don't mind the width too much, as long as its not stupidly small, but can you set it how it was before so it resizes the image rather than adding a scroll bar?

It does. There is not supposed to be a scrollbar. Unless maybe you are using a weird browser?
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom