Image Sizes

[AndrewR]

Here are three different sizes. You can leave a comment on the old site to report which ones are viewable without scrolling.

1024 by 768



800 by 600



640 by 480



Leave a comment at the old site

http://gregers.7.forumer.com/viewtopic. ... 896#191896;

Cheers

Andrew

[flakmonkey]

What you have to remember with this is that scrolling is an inevitable consequence if you don't have sufficient screen real-estate. An 800x600px image is always going to render in a conventional browser at 800x600px device pixels, and so if your screen resolution is set to less than 1024x768 then you're going to run into some horizontal scrolling - on a 1024x768 screen, with the browser maximised the maximum possible viewing area is going to be 955x600px. That's a maximum, add in the fact that we use HTML tables to lay these pages out efficiently and you end up with a post area (the bit that actually contains the pictures in question) that is something like 790px wide on a 1024x768 screen. You may find that by going full screen with your browser (F11 on IE, ctrl+shift+F (win) cmd+shift+F (mac) on Firefox) you can give the browser just enough screen area to avoid scrolling on lower resolution displays.

The whole layout is designed to "stretch" to fill the screen, this is a much fairer way of doing things than a fixed width layout as people on small screens will find that text magically reflows itself and the widescreen brigade don't get acres of blank blue border. Unfortunately, unlike text, we can't make images reflow, so we have a choice of leaving them as they are (which means some people will have to go scrolling left and right) or we can use Java script to resize them and put a clickable bar at the top of the image to allow the image to be seen full size. The problem with resizing images using Java script is that it can make pages horribly slow to load, so it's not something we like to do very often.

If this sounds like "tough luck, your screen is too small", I would say that one of my favourite devices for perusing the interwebnet is Apple's dinky little 12" G4 Powerbook which won't go any higher than 1024x768 with both taps on full and two of you trying, so it is something I'm acutely aware of; I have become a dab hand at the trackpad gestures for 360º scrolling

[AndrewR]

Stupot brought this problem up, and I thought we should find the extent of the problem.

I'm viewing this on an ipod, so I'm used to scrolling..,

I've suggested a quite conservative 800 by 600 maximum for Gallery images.

[MerlinJones]

My PC is set to 1680 x 1050, so all of the above are good for me.

Me, me, me...

Regards,
Bruce

[AndrewR]

Smaller image sizes will reduce loading times from the image hosting service, so erring on the side of caution has advantages... !

[JamesPerrin]

Well the simple answer on a big screen I can see them all on a smaller screen I can see two of them and on a tiny screen just the smallest

However I think 800x600 is probably the largest that works within the forum whatever the size of screen as I want to be able to read text and look at the picture at the same time. Downloading times are an issues too for those on mobile/wireless connections.

I use 640x480 for workbench shots and 800x600 for final studio shots and from the looks of things so do the majority of users.