New Image Size Limits

[Mictheslik]

Firefox and IE

I have to scroll about 20% at 1280x960

With a bit of experimenting my lowest resolution I can view it whole as is 1360x1024....this makes everything else really small......not convenient....but at least my monitor can reach that high....

.mic

[Fozzer]

I always have to scroll 800 pixel width screen shots on my 1024 X 760 Firefox Browser.

If I post a Screen shot I always have to make it either 700 pixels wide, or standard size; 640 X 480 to avoid scrolling.

It may be something to do with extra wide Borders on the Forum Page?

Paul....1024 X 760...(Makes everything easier to read, and Print)... 8-)...!

[Hagar]

Running at 1280 by 1024 and had to scroll.

Which browser?

[mrjake2002]

I have to scroll at 1152 x 864... good news on the size though.  8-)

I think I'll keep my images at 800 x 600 and 100k though, and just post one more!  ;)

[Bob70]

[spitfire boy]

Running at 1280 by 1024 and had to scroll.

Which browser?

IE...6 I think.... came stock with the computer. Must get round to replacing it at some point.

[BAW0343]

I had to scroll in firefox with 1280x1024

I'm fine with the 150kb thing tho  ;D

[a1]

Great. This way I can have bigger and more colorful shots up.

[Craig.]

It's scrolling for me at the larger size and I run 1280x960
I think I will be sticking at 800 for mine but using the increased file size to better advantage. That 50kb makes a big differance in some of my shots.

[NickN]

The weight limits being changed are a good thing, but I can't say I feel the same for the size limits....

I thought the increased limits were to reduce compression....but by allowing the width to be bigger it just means there's going to be more compression, plus annoyance for those who will have to scroll for anything over 800 wide ( a majority of people I believe)

just my thoughts on this

.mic

rubbish

its time to move with the times. I have been on high res for 6 years and widescreen for a few as well. Its time to upgrade the experience

and 150KB is the same for a 1024x768 image as 100K is for 800x600. It allows those who are on 4:3 and 16:9 to be able to post the same scale and have the same quality. The 100K increase means the thread weight is practically the same.






No problem with compression there. @1024x640 I probably could have shaved off another 20 and got it close to 110 which means those who go x768 will have the extra they need and 150Kb is more than enough.


It gives people choices in size and compression.

Thank you pete, a good move, especially since this forum has a lot of screenshot and artistic activity.

[The Ruptured Duck]

Thank you, oh great lord of Simv, we humble simviationites are thankful.

[NickN]

One thing 1024 will not allow... fudged shots because I can tell when 800x shots are tinkered with on a 1920x screen but with 1024 the resolution will give even the best photoshop tricks away every time. Also, reducing images hides defects and blurs so that means we just raised the bar on quality screenshots. No way to hide those pesky defects if you are not reducing from a native resolution of 1024x and the hardware isnt keeping up.

of course there is always the trick of jacking up the monitor to some outrageous resolution and running at 5 frames just to grab a high res sample, then reduce it. That one is real popular.

[Sir_Crashalot]

rubbish

its time to move with the times. I have been on high res for 6 years and widescreen for a few as well. Its time to upgrade the experience

and 150KB is the same for a 1024x768 image as 100K is for 800x600. It allows those who are on 4:3 and 16:9 to be able to post the same scale and have the same quality. The 100K increase means the thread weight is practically the same.






No problem with compression there. @1024x640 I probably could have shaved off another 20 and got it close to 110 which means those who go x768 will have the extra they need and 150Kb is more than enough.


It gives people choices in size and compression.

Thank you pete, a good move, especially since this forum has a lot of screenshot and artistic activity.

I agree with you that it gives people a choice in weight and size but the fact that I had to scroll through your message about 6 times just to read to text annoys the hell out of me. Keep the shots at 800 wide and scrolling is hardly needed. Don't forget that the majority of the users here don't use widescreen monitors that can handle the resolution. And I'm not going to buy one in the near future too.

For all you who said that FF or IE7 can handle the image. Don't these two browser reduce picture sizes automatically to fit the screen? So that you watch a 1024 picture reduce to 800 by 'inferiour' software?

Crash

[Alonso]

1024x768 screen resolution is MUCH more common than 56k internet...

The problem at high resolutions is that LCD monitors can only run 1 native resolution and that is not great.

If I had a CRT monitor, I wouldn't complain, but now I have to scroll to see the other half of a 1024x768 image.

Oh: found a solution!!! When you're at a 1024 image thread, press the minus (-) key, or, in some cases, Alt + minus key until you see the whole image. Then return pressing + or Alt+ +, or closing the tab. It's not the best solution, but certainly helps.

[pepper_airborne]

Running at 1280 by 1024 and had to scroll. Mind you, I should be upgrading fairly soon... I think I'll just keep my screenshots at 800 wide as I was doing before.

Strange, im at the same resolution and i didnt need too scroll..