Print Page | Close Window

Picture size for posting

Printed From: Dyxum.com
Category: Dyxum Community
Forum Name: About Dyxum.com
Forum Description: Dyxum announcements, suggestions, critique and other discussions
URL: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=114856
Printed Date: 10 July 2020 at 07:56


Topic: Picture size for posting
Posted By: Bob J
Subject: Picture size for posting
Date Posted: 28 August 2015 at 10:27
Why you should keep to Dyxum’s suggested picture sizes

In our rules and guidelines we suggest that members only post pictures that are 1024 pixels wide, or 960 pixels high. We have noticed in recent months that more and more people are posting images that are much bigger than this, and are relying on the forum software to re-size their images to fit. The idea of this message is to explain why we would like people to keep to the posting sizes suggested, despite the ability of the forum software to display large images to fit normal monitor sizes…

Browser incompatibilities

Although the forum scripts resize overlarge pictures, this feature may not work with all browsers , so some members may not see your pictures as you intend.

Slow connections

Even if your image is displayed at a reasonable size in the browser of a viewer, the whole full-size picture is being transferred down the line – this may not be noticeable if you are working on high speed broadband, but for users on slower lines or WiFi it can make viewing a picture post very difficult.

Subscriptions

A number of members subscribe to picture threads so that they get an email sent through with any new postings – the resizing does not work with most email packages, so your image will appear in their email at full size.

DPCs and exhibitions

Our team members spend quite a bit of time dealing with preparation for exhibitions and voting threads for DPCs, the scripts they use to compile these postings do not benefit from resizing, which makes the whole process much more labour intensive. We would rather not lose great pictures from exhibitions or DPC voting lists just because the images are too big for us to work with.

But it is not just for the comfort of other Dyxum members that we think you should keep within the guidelines - there are particular reasons why it is not in members' interests to just leave resizing of their pictures to the forum app:

Sharpening

To get the optimum benefit from sharpening you should be applying the sharpening at the resolution the image will be viewed at (ie you sharpen differently for something to be viewed on a monitor than you would for a print). If you sharpen for a higher resolution and then the forum software resizes, the benefits of your sharpening will be lost.

Copyright

If you post at high resolutions, your images can be downloaded and pirated at that resolution – we know a lot of people spend time applying watermarks to their images, but effectively posting a 600x900 image means that any pirate is only going to have a low resolution copy that they will not be able to do much with practically – however, if they have a 4000x6000 image they have something that they can pass off as their own (and something it is worth spending time removing a watermark from).

For the above reasons we would ask all members to take the time to resize their images so they are at or below the suggested resolutions.
We are also considering commissioning some knowledge-base articles on preparing images for web display and would be grateful for any volunteers to contribute text or useful links to guides elsewhere on the internet.



-------------
RBJ ~ http://tinyurl.com/h7uhozk - Moderation on Dyxum



Replies:
Posted By: nandbytes
Date Posted: 28 August 2015 at 10:50
interesting point about web-sized displays and theft. I am currently in process of designing my website for pictures (have been for last 3 months ), I am relying on wordpress plugins to resize and they work pretty well as far as I can tell.

Otherwise I normally just use lightroom to downsize my images (to about 4mp) and flickr to downsize it further when posting on here.

-------------
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/ - my flickr
A7RIV & LX100ii


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 03 September 2015 at 10:13
Thanks Bob for the summary.

-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: skm.sa100
Date Posted: 03 September 2015 at 16:11
My Picasa workflow:
I use Picasa as my hosting site. When I upload from my computer, I use "Best for web sharing" for Image Size. That saves online storage and also prevents piracy to a certain extent due to the smaller image which might not translate very well into a print size. Depending on how finicky you are, you might want to save at this resolution before uploading to help keep YOUR preferred sharpening and then upload original size.

When I copy the image URL from Picasa, the size is included in the URL and I resize it as I see fit.

For example, here is an image URL I *might* have shared before.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aB0YEoHqOmU/VTHRyh5YQAI/AAAAAAAA4hI/qyqQsNIPqIM/s640-Ic42/UV%252520effect%252520flower%2525202.jpg

The image size his highlighted in yellow.
Earlier, the URL used to have 'h' and 'w' for height and width and I would manually update those values. Now I just update the 's640' to 's800' so it's 800 pixels wide (or high, depending on orientation). The other dimension seems to be auto calculated. You can go up to 1040, as Bob suggested above, if you want a larger size.

If you use Picasa and found this post useful, my effort isn't wasted.


Regards,
Sashi


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 03 September 2015 at 20:07
Thanks Sashi.

BTW, we have a http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - thread describing how to post pictures from various sites, including methods of choosing the size of the photo to post.


-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: Sarbey
Date Posted: 22 December 2016 at 20:44
Hi,

Thanks for the helpful information.


Posted By: Miranda F
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 09:37
A recent thread about http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/is-the-world-ready-for-4k_topic130220_post1517134.html#1517134 - 4k TVs , and in particular http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/is-the-world-ready-for-4k_topic130220_post1517135.html#1517135 - this post by Cliff leads me to question whether these guidelines are now archaic and should be updated.

1. In these days of fast internet, hardly anyone nowadays relies on a basic slow telephone-line internet.

2. Most enthusiast photographers (eg those on this forum) will show pictures on a monitor or TV with a lot more than 1024 pixels

3. Restricting images to the quote sizes hides much of the detail in the images that we like to comment on.

4. Most people get around this by linking to another website where full-size (or at least larger) images *can* be displayed, making a nonsense of the restriction.

5. We can still use thumbnails or small sizes when appropropriate.

6. It's not even as if Dyxum are trying to save space on their own servers, because they don't host images . . .

-------------
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 09:54
Re 1) But at the same time - not all people are on fibre optic network I would dare to say that the situation is quite opposite. Not once, when working with pictures for Exhibs or DPCs I encountered a situation when somebody hot-linked full-size photo with alittle compression. I assure you that you could feel the difference in Dyxum page loading. Now imagine that you have several such photos on one page.

Re 2) Even if at work I have nice 3840x2160 display, at home I still use full HD (same as my mobile), not to mention my tablet which is still 1280x800. Have you tried this? You should. For me - looking at threads with BIG photos is annoying because I cannot see them properly unless I rescale the browser or open the photo in a separate tab.

Re 3) You can always go to the original size - if only the author shares it (e.g. not me - I never post original sizes anywhere).

Re 4) And this is IMO the way to go and no - this is not a nonsense.

Re 5) If you show me a single post (except thumbnail threads in challenges, where this is explicit requirement) that uses small sizes or thumbnails "when appropriate" then I will wholeheartedly agree with you

Re 6) The point is not with hosting images (although it would be quite a challenge to host them) but with the bandwidh, speed of the web page loading and ease of looking at photos.


-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: ABDurbs
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 12:32
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

A recent thread about http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/is-the-world-ready-for-4k_topic130220_post1517134.html#1517134 - 4k TVs , and in particular http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/is-the-world-ready-for-4k_topic130220_post1517135.html#1517135 - this post by Cliff leads me to question whether these guidelines are now archaic and should be updated.

1. In these days of fast internet, hardly anyone nowadays relies on a basic slow telephone-line internet.



Why would you think that hardly anyone relies on a basic slow telephone line internet these days? Are you basing that on what you see in the UK or USA or modern Europe? There are many millions of internet users who are still using telephone line internet. Unlike most 1st world countries, fast unrestricted fibre internet is very expensive on a continent like Africa. For many millions of African internet users, telephone line internet is still the only viable option.

-------------
Regards
Allan
A99 + VG, A77ii + VG, 70-400G, Zeiss 85mm f1.7, CZ16-80, Tamron 70-200 USD Tamron 24-70 USD, HVL-43AM, Godox TT685S & X1T-S, Minolta 8000i, Minolta 50mm f1.7


Posted By: Winwalloe
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 13:08
There'll always be users with slower connections, lower resolution screens... But the websites & apps can keep improving because there are now adaptive or responsive designs.

(I do that in a relatively dumb methode in my personal website: visitors with a screen taller than 1440 get a higher resolution JPEG than those with a smaller screen).

-------------
http://guenolephilippe.fr - See my webpage!
A-mount stuff, and few µ43 stuff.


Posted By: ricardovaste
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 13:35
I occasionally find the compression a tad annoying when posting vertical images, but I'm aware of it so I just try to re-size them when possible. Overall I think the limitations work best to serve all types of users. I can still post around 1000px wide which reveals plenty of details, assuming I am resizing and sharpening for web presentation. If you ever feel like you can't see enough detail at this size, then it's probably poor post production or just not a great photo.

If there is a particular way I wish to present a set of images, or if I wish to present them larger for some reason, I do often just link to a web page on my site. As everyone is hosting off dyxum, I think this is probably quite easy even if you don't own your own website.

I occasionally post on another website, FredMiranda, and it is somewhat easier to post as you can just drop the .jpeg url, however, people do post ENORMOUS photos which can result in the dreaded HORIZONTAL SCROLL OF DOOM quite often. If I just want to check in on my phone to clarify some info for example when researching, it can make the process a bit tedious.

I think it works pretty well here overall.

-------------
I photograph the moments in people's lives that mean the most to them: http://www.rharris-images.com/ - Richard Harris Photography


Posted By: ricardovaste
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 13:37
Originally posted by Winwalloe Winwalloe wrote:

There'll always be users with slower connections, lower resolution screens... But the websites & apps can keep improving because there are now adaptive or responsive designs.

(I do that in a relatively dumb methode in my personal website: visitors with a screen taller than 1440 get a higher resolution JPEG than those with a smaller screen).


This is true for web design, but remember that dyxum isn't a business and is run by volunteers - upgrading to the latest and greatest just isn't viable AFAIK. It has been brought up numerous times of the years (not responsive design, just general forum upgrades) and I believe it's very much a chase of living within what is realistically possible. So I think we are to count our blessings!

-------------
I photograph the moments in people's lives that mean the most to them: http://www.rharris-images.com/ - Richard Harris Photography


Posted By: owenn01
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 14:33
I think what appeals to me on here is the fact that there is a consistent (well, nearly always consistent) image size for everyone; yes, there are potentially some limitations but, on the whole, I know that if I am looking at this on my Mac at home, my laptop at work (occasionally... ; honest) or a tablet device it is likely that I will see the whole image without, as Richard so succinctly put it, THE HORIZONTAL SCROLLBAR OF DOOM. And another thought on that last comment - just think how much more difficult it would make the AMAE's roles if they had to scroll through an image to form an opinion on someone's work?I'm not sure too many people would volunteer, nor would there likely be as many comments as we get now?

No - happy to maintain the status quo as far as image size is concerned at the moment.

Best regards, Neil.

-------------
My Mantra: "Comment on other's work as you would wish to have yours commented upon". Go on - it's fun!


Posted By: owenn01
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 14:35
Originally posted by ricardovaste ricardovaste wrote:

If you ever feel like you can't see enough detail at this size, then it's probably poor post production or just not a great photo.


Ah, Richard: thanks for letting me know where I've been going wrong all these years now...

-------------
My Mantra: "Comment on other's work as you would wish to have yours commented upon". Go on - it's fun!


Posted By: ricardovaste
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 14:59
Originally posted by owenn01 owenn01 wrote:

Originally posted by ricardovaste ricardovaste wrote:

If you ever feel like you can't see enough detail at this size, then it's probably poor post production or just not a great photo.


Ah, Richard: thanks for letting me know where I've been going wrong all these years now...


I hope my remark isn't to be misinterpreted by anyone. We are all learning post production, constantly, and we all take "bad" photos - usually more "bad" than "good". I myself am still surprised when I manage to get something remotely in focus and pointed at the right subject . To which to say, altering the web design often isn't the answer.

-------------
I photograph the moments in people's lives that mean the most to them: http://www.rharris-images.com/ - Richard Harris Photography


Posted By: Winwalloe
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 15:14
Scrolling bars are generated by pictures larger than their boxes. It's a coding issue, except if it's intentional.

Those boxes are properly managed in Dyxum since inserting a picture larger than 1024px will not make the picture bigger. The original file will be resized to the box, allowing high-res screen to display a hi-res photo.

On some forums the picture size is checked, and refused if larger than 1024px.

-------------
http://guenolephilippe.fr - See my webpage!
A-mount stuff, and few µ43 stuff.


Posted By: addy landzaat
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 15:30
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

2. Most enthusiast photographers (eg those on this forum) will show pictures on a monitor or TV with a lot more than 1024 pixels
That might be true for you, certainly not for me. I mostly use a 13" laptop to visit Dyxum and sometimes my phone. I use my calibrated 24" desktop monitor for editing, not for going to Dyxum. The picture within Dyxum now just fit the screen, bigger would be cumbersome.

I am very much against changing the size of pictures on Dyxum. If somebody wants a bigger version, they can click through to my Smugmug page.

I find it archaic to assume people watch photographs only on big screens.....

-------------
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 16:16
Hi all, interesting discussion, I will not repeat its evolution and what led me to question the utility of Dyxum's upload recommendations here. They are available in http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic130220_post1517278.html#1517278 - Is the World ready for 4k .

My comments are:

1) I fully support limited upload resolutions for all the reasons listed. FWIW I am one of those relics with DSL as internet service. Big photo files are a pain for me.

2) My question was why Dyxum specifies an upload size that does not correspond to either display standards or sensors. If it was simply convenient numbers that yield an upload file size of a little less than 1Mb it accomplishes that goal. Subsequent screen display adapter remapping for photo pixels to display on a screen with a different pixel ratio will have an impact on displayed sharpness.

3) All HD formats are ratios of 16:9. Pixel counts vary by HD standard, but all have a ratio of 16:9 width to height as a common denominator. They will map relatively cleanly between standards. HD was standardized in 1993, coming up on 25 years ago. The 7D was not yet even a gleam in a Minolta engineers eye. HD standards have not just fallen off the turnip wagon.

4) There are two HD standards that yield files around 1mb. They are HD Ready (720p) at 1280x720 and HD Basic at 1366x768. HD Ready produces files that are slightly smaller than the Dyxum maximum file size recommendation and scale directly to 4k resolution HD standards.

5) Question, What size does Dyxum resize to? The upload standard is recommended at 1025x960 max, but an example states that a display at 600x900 (sic) will wash out sharpening done at a higher resolution. Sharpening will also be lost on a photo sharpened at a pixel ratio that varies from that of the display.

6) There is nothing that prevents us from formatting photos for uploading at HD ready, or another HD standard. HD Ready width exceeds the Dyxum recommendation, but the height is lower. It produces a file size that is smaller than the Dyxum max recommendation. However, that gets me back to the question I asked in (5) above about Dyxum resizing. If we format to any size that varies from Dyxum's resizing (the 600x900 example seems very unlikely, even though it is a subset of 3:2 sensor ratio in portrait mode) nothing matters, the result is just varying degrees of fuzzy.

7) I respectfully suggest that the Lords of Dyxum Towers consider a minor adjustment of the picture format to an HD standard, HD Ready (720p) would work. That would also reduce upload file sizes moderately from the current recommendation while preserving sharpening.

-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 16:41
Hi Addy, the question is not bigger pictures (larger files) but display formats and the impact width/height ratios and resizing have on display sharpness.

You may consider large screens archaic, but if you care to see detail in images large screens are the only way to do it unless you like having your eyeballs right up close and personal with the display. This https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=920&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=31UxWvWdDob0UICOvtgP&q=hd+resolution+chart&oq=hd+resolution+c&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0j0i30k1j0i8i30k1l4j0i24k1l3.11335.16132.0.18318.12.7.0.5.5.0.239.1145.0j4j2.6.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.11.1221...0i67k1.0.5-uyuN7WRgE#imgrc=jRfZ01Djj6iKjM: - chart illustrates the problem.

-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 17:04
I don't understand a need for a change from the current size limit based on concerns about either sensor dimensions or HD standards affecting sharpness.

If you resize a photo, resize it to be less than 1024 horizontally and less than 960 vertically. If you're picky about the resized dimensions, try some variations. Example: 6000x4000 can be proportionally resized to 1020x680, 1000x667, 960x640, etc. Then sharpen the resized version before posting according to output sharpening recommendations, which is standard practice anyway.

I suppose those with a keen interest in this can do exactly that and show the various results, either here or in a dedicated thread. Then we can all weigh in on whether or not sharpness or anything else has been compromised.

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 17:52
The easiest solution is to edit and upload pictures at the resolution Dyxum resizes to. That would be easier for Dyxum too. While 1024x960 is specified as the max, there is no indication of what Dyxum resizes to, although there is an implication it might be 600x900. There is also logic to Dyxum resizing to an industry standard like HD.

That would leave the question of the impact display adapter resizing has to match screen resolution unanswered. Display adapter mavens among us might care to weigh in on what display adapters tend to do with pixel count and ratio images that vary from display ratios/pixels and what that means to us as viewers.

As others have noted, we are viewing displays of photos rather than prints most of the time these days, and the ratio is growing more lopsided towards display even as we discuss it. That means display issues matter. They matter more today than they did in the past, and will matter more tomorrow than they do today. It would seem a point of pride for Dyxum to do an elegant job of maximizing picture quality for viewers.

-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 18:30
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

The easiest solution is to edit and upload pictures at the resolution Dyxum resizes to. That would be easier for Dyxum too. While 1024x960 is specified as the max, there is no indication of what Dyxum resizes to, although there is an implication it might be 600x900. There is also logic to Dyxum resizing to an industry standard like HD.
Just tested, Dyxum resizes to max 1028 horizontal or max 1000 vertical, whichever is limiting first. The other dimension is then below the other maximum. Hope this makes sense

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 13 December 2017 at 19:07
Thank you. That makes a great deal of sense and comports well with the 1024/960 guidance. That would seem to make uploads at 1024x768, the old XVGA standard a good format, Dyxum will pass them through untouched. That's a good deal for us users and for Dyxum too. The conversion from XVGAs 4:3 ratio to modern HD displays at 16:9 may still be problematic but at 4:1 pixels horizontal and 3:1 vertical it is pretty clean, no fractions or interpolations. It also lets us know that it does not matter what HD standard our displays are, the displayed images from Dyxum will look the same to all of us (same as we could see in 1990 when my Minolta 7000i was relatively new).

-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: clk230
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 07:43
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

Just tested, Dyxum resizes to max 1028 horizontal or max 1000 vertical, whichever is limiting first. The other dimension is then below the other maximum. Hope this makes sense

Firefox says http://www.dyxum.com/DFORUM/crop-of-a-crop_topic130531_post1521309.html#1521309 - this image from Brandy was originally 960px × 959px but was scaled to 901px × 900px. Internet Explorer says 901 x 900 pixels. Is it my browsers or is Dyxum resizing limiting the vertical dimension to 900?

-------------
C & C always welcome


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 08:04
Originally posted by clk230 clk230 wrote:

Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

Just tested, Dyxum resizes to max 1028 horizontal or max 1000 vertical, whichever is limiting first. The other dimension is then below the other maximum. Hope this makes sense

Firefox says http://www.dyxum.com/DFORUM/crop-of-a-crop_topic130531_post1521309.html#1521309 - this image from Brandy was originally 960px × 959px but was scaled to 901px × 900px. Internet Explorer says 901 x 900 pixels. Is it my browsers or is Dyxum resizing limiting the vertical dimension to 900?
On my computer/Firefox browser this picture doesn't scale and it is shows at full size (960 x 959).

So I guess the scaling on your side is by a setting on your compter or in your browser.

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: clk230
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 08:12
OK, so if I make Firefox or Internet Explorer full screen (F11) then it shows full size. My monitor's native resolution is 1920x1080 so perhaps both browsers resize so that whole vertical scope of the image is visible even with the window menu bar and status bus etc.

-------------
C & C always welcome


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 09:25
James, that might be it since my screen is 1200 pixels vertical.

I think there is an option somewhere in Firefox where you can instruct the browser to scale images to screen size or leave them at the size dictated by the site. But I couldn't find it right away.

I just checked with a large picture and irrespective of full screen (F11) or not it remains 1000 pix vertical, so I think that's the limit set by the Dyxum site.

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 09:33
Nice discussion :)
To solve the mystery once and for all: Dyxum does not rescale images Dyxum kindly asks browsers to do this operation by setting appropriate CSS properties for the image. Strictly speaking the CSS is following:

.msgBody img, .PMmsgBody img {
    max-width: 1024px;
    height: auto;
    max-height: 900px;
    margin: 0px;
    padding: 0px;
}


So, the image should be rescaled to 1024 pixels if it is wider and 900 pixels if it is taller. Exact interpretation is up to the browser. One can play with CSS in-browser (look for appropriate plugins/extensions) and override these settings.


-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 09:53
Thanks Mirek, it's clear you know a lot more about this than I do

Only question is now what setting in my browser causes the pictures to be scaled to 1000 pix vertical, as far as I know I never changed/plugged anything in my browser to override the 900 pix that the Dyxum site seems to "ask" for.

The horizontal scaling is in line with 1024 pix.    

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 10:11
That's because there is additional rule in the CSS (which I missed - sorry) which overrides the 900px restriction:

@media only screen and (min-height: 1000px) {
.msgBody img, .PMmsgBody img {
    max-height: 1000px;
}


This rule basically says that if the screen is at least 1000px high then the picture will be rescaled to 1000px vertically instead of 900px.


-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 10:37
Thanks Mirek

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 16:08
For years the High Definition (HD) aspect ratio of 16:9 has been the industry standard for screens. Even Apple has adopted it on their 5k screens. It will be standard for years to come.

Most photos these days are viewed on screens. ALL photos on Dyxum are viewed on screens. It would seem reasonable for Dyxum to consider sizing to the industry HD aspect ratio standard screen.

HD Ready (720p) is the base 16:9 aspect ratio screen format. At 1280x720 and .92mp it generates an image that is slightly smaller than the current Dyxum standard at 1024x960 and .98mp. It is thus even more bandwidth friendly than the Dyxum standard.

HD Basic at 1366x768 and 1.05mp is only slightly larger than the current Dyxum standard and does not require materially more bandwidth.

HD (1080p) at 1920x1080 and 2mp is by far the most prevalent HD 16:9 aspect ratio. For me with slow broadband (DSL) 1080p provides acceptable download speeds.

When we remap to aspect ratios that differ from the native screen aspect ratio image quality degrades. The image pixels shape does not match the screen pixels shape. Consider the odd pixel remapping required to put a Dyxum standard (but never a screen or print standard) 1024x960 4:3.75 image on an industry standard 16:9 screen. It is not pretty.

Part of why we hang out at Dyxum is appreciation of the amazing technology that Sony has brought to cameras. We would benefit from adopting display standards that embrace and enhance rather than degrade the images those cameras help us produce.

Please Dyxum consider at least allowing us to upload HD ready (720p) images at 1280x720 that are smaller and even more bandwidth friendly than the bandwidth conserving Dyxum limits while providing high definition images. It's a win win.


-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 16:40
Cliff, sorry, I'm do not understand what you are asking for.

First, aspect ratio is set by the photographer, not by the site, we don't want every picture elongated or shortened on one side to make every image fit the 16:9 aspect ratio. That will look really ugly. And if the aspect ratio is not changed your last question to set the limits at 1280x720 will make portrait oriented pictures even smaller then today, when they can be 900 pixels high

Second, if you want all viewers to see your pictures on Dyxum exactly like you processed and sharpened them just make sure you upload it with a horizontal size < 1024 pixels and a vertical size < 900 pixels. Once you do that the screen size and/or pixel dimensions of the viewer's screen don't matter anymore. Every pixel of the image is then 1 pixel on the screen without any degradation or additional artifacts introduced. It will just have more or less black background around it.

We are looking to maybe increase the horizontal dimension some but we're first looking at the distribution of screen sizes of our viewers (our web app allows us to do that). Until now the strategy of Dyxum has always been to be most sensitive to people with smaller screens and bandwith so no guarantee it will change in the short term.

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 16:41
Cliff, I hope you noticed that still images produced by all cameras are 3:2, not 16:9?

EDITED: except those oldies which produced 4:3 or those which were forced to use non-standard aspect ratio (which I personally never do). And I agree with Pieter on this - aspect ratio is decided by the photog not Dyxum.

-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: QuietOC
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 17:08
I am using 5:4 screens at work. I have a 21:9 (actually 64:27) screen at home. The current iMacs may be 16:9, but they used to be 16:10.

I rather dislike 3:2 pictures, though I am often lazy and don't crop. 16:9 is better at least for landscape, but not really wide enough. I notice that nearly everything I've been watching outside of YouTube has been wider than 16:9. 16:9 is not an aspect ratio anyone chooses to use. It is just a TV industry compromise, just like the previous 4:3.

-------------
Sony A7III A6000 HVL-F45RM LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MB-IV MC-11 EF-E II MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q


Posted By: addy landzaat
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 17:24
The aspect ratio of the screen is irrelevant to the aspect ratio of the picture as the picture is not shown full screen on Dyxum. There is always something to the left of the picture.

-------------
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 18:21
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

When we remap to aspect ratios that differ from the native screen aspect ratio image quality degrades. The image pixels shape does not match the screen pixels shape.

My camera uses square pixels no matter what aspect ratio I choose for capture, or how I crop the result, or the pixel dimensions I choose when I downsize the final image for some purpose. The pixels remain square in shape; and my 1920x1080 monitor also uses square pixels. No pixel shape changing occurs at any time. Your cameras are just like mine, so that can't be a problem. If your monitor somehow uses non-square pixels, I feel sorry for you; but that can't be dyxum's responsibility.

Consider the odd pixel remapping required to put a Dyxum standard (but never a screen or print standard) 1024x960 4:3.75 image on an industry standard 16:9 screen. It is not pretty.

I fail to understand this. What happens is that you get extra unused space on the sides. It's unavoidable unless you deliberately distort the image to fill the monitor.

Please Dyxum consider at least allowing us to upload HD ready (720p) images at 1280x720 that are smaller and even more bandwidth friendly than the bandwidth conserving Dyxum limits while providing high definition images. It's a win win.

If you're saying that you're trying to post images that exceed dyxum's horizontal limit and also exceed its vertical limit and the end results get squished in one dimension or the other (is that in fact what's happening?) then stop doing that! Regardless of the aspect ratio of your images, just make sure that neither dimension exceeds the limit and all will be well. Your aspect ratio will remain as you made it and your pixels will remain square. You will have to accept some extra unused space on the sides, though.

Also, your suggestion would force portrait-oriented images into an even smaller area than they are at preset.

Folks, I myself have no special need for a revised limit of 1280 pixels wide (or 720 pixels high). Does anyone else here? I wouldn't object to extending the limits in some way, but it seems unnecessary to me.

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 18:55
Hi Pegelli, What I am proposing is for Dyxum to consider accepting a photo sized to HD Ready (720p) 1280x720 pixel 16:9 aspect ratio image rather than resizing to a Dyxum max of 1024. It would be less work for Dyxum, allow high definition images, and produce a smaller file than 1024x960.

Portrait orientation images are always problematic on landscape oriented screens. I have dealt with that by using a two display setup. One landscape and the other turned portrait, just as we do with the camera to take a portrait orientation picture. That allows the HD 16:9 aspect ratio to be maintained. It is a twofer, and relatively cheap at about $150.

Hi Mikre, The Sony cameras I have all allow users to choose between 3:2 (traditional 35mm) and 16:9 aspect ratios. Sony has recognized that the HD 16:9 aspect ratio is what most images are viewed at on screen and that is what the world is doing. Display has replaced print as the dominant viewing paradigm. A topic for another thread might be "What aspect ratio do we shoot at, and why?"

Hi Matthew, Are you using engineering workstations at work? The Ultrawide you have at home is interesting, and an odd beastie. Looks like UHD (4k), DCI (4k cinema) and Ultra wide TV all have 2160 pixel height and stretch the horizontal from 3840 for UHD to 5120 for Ultra wide.

Yep, 16:9 is a TV industry compromise, and the LED screen manufacturers (all 4 or 5 of them) are producing 16:9 screens by the hundreds of millions. Economies of scale and competitive pricing pressure make them both high definition and cheap. Other standards/aspect ratios for special applications in non price sensitive environments like engineering will always have a niche.

The price premium of producing other aspect ratios at much lower volumes make them unattractive for general use. There is no better proof of that than Apple abandoning its proprietary 16:10 ratio and adopting the industry standard 16:9 for 5k. That is not something Apple often does. The cost premium for 5k @ 16:10 must have stunned even them. Plus, the resolution of 5k over 4k is invisible at more than a foot or so away, even on a large screen. There were few benefits over HD 4k to lure customers to pay a serious price premium.

Hi Addy, remapping image aspect ratios that differ from the native screen aspect ratio by definition causes image degradation. A less than full screen image that maintains 16:9 aspect ratio still maps to native screen hardware. Other ratios do not.

edit: The pixels may be square, but when the display ratio does not match the image ratio, something has to give. They do not map directly 1:1.

Allowing a standard HD aspect ratio that matches most screen displays with a smaller file size lets folks use a standard format and means less resizing for Dyxum. There is no down side for anyone.


-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:07
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

Hi Mikre, The Sony cameras I have all allow users to choose between 3:2 (traditional 35mm) and 16:9 aspect ratios. Sony has recognized that the HD 16:9 aspect ratio is what most images are viewed at on screen and that is what the world is doing. Display has replaced print as the dominant viewing paradigm. A topic for another thread might be "What aspect ratio do we shoot at, and why?"

1) I'm shooting RAW and TBH I to not care about "odd" aspect ratios. I looked around for what image formats were used in photography and although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_format - many different (and sometimes strange) were used - I failed to find any indication of 16:9.

2) The screen aspect ratio is completely irrelevant because in a browser you never look at the photo full-screen - it is always "immersed" in the web page, i.e. there are other elements which "disturb" the ratio of the display.

3) On high-resolution displays (say: full HD and above) I never ever browse Internet in full screen mode - the browser is always smaller. I just like to see the desktop and other widows. The only situation when I use full-screen mode is my tablet.

4) As other pointed out: display aspect ratio has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the photo itself. Personally I prefer to stay with original 3:2 and sometimes 1:1, but I've seen a lot of photos where people were cropping freely (e.g. my daughter) effectively choosing the ratio that "fits the photo" and has nothing to do with the display size/ratio.


-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:09
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

What I am proposing is for Dyxum to consider accepting a photo sized to HD Ready (720p) 1280x720 pixel 16:9 aspect ratio image rather than resizing to a Dyxum max of 1024.

What most of the rest of us are saying is that there's nothing special about either the 16:9 ratio or the 1280 pixel number. Whatever the aspect ratios of your images, they will be retained if you keep the dimensions within the limits when you downsample them for presentation. Increasing the horizontal 1024 limit to 1280 would allow for slightly greater displayed area on the monitor, but nothing else meaningful.

But I just realized something: Are you intending to link to high-res 16:9 images that have not actually been downsampled by you to 1280x720?

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:12
Originally posted by MiPr MiPr wrote:


1) I'm shooting RAW and TBH I to not care about "odd" aspect ratios. I looked around for what image formats were used in photography and although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_format - many different (and sometimes strange) were used - I failed to find any indication of 16:9.


You need look no further than your Sony camera menu. It offers the selection of 3:2 or 16:9 aspect ratios.

-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:19
Cliff, I assure you that I'm well aware of what image formats my camera offers and where to find the relevant menu option, but thank you for guiding me Anyways, please let me re-iterate: I'm shooting RAW, which means I'm shooting 3:2. Period.

-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:20
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

Remapping image aspect ratios that differ from the native screen aspect ratio by definition causes image degradation. A less than full screen image that maintains 16:9 aspect ratio still maps to native screen hardware. Other ratios do not.

We're repeatedly trying to explain that the screen aspect ratio is irrelevant in practical use. The only situation in which that matters is if you require an image to use the entire screen space. If you don't require that - and the majority of us don't - then any image aspect ratio can live correctly within the space of any screen aspect ratio, but with some unused space somewhere.

What you really seem to be objecting to is downsampling.

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:20
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

1) Hi Pegelli, What I am proposing is for Dyxum to consider accepting a photo sized to HD Ready (720p) 1280x720 pixel 16:9 aspect ratio image rather than resizing to a Dyxum max of 1024. It would be less work for Dyxum, allow high definition images, and produce a smaller file than 1024x960.

2) Portrait orientation images are always problematic on landscape oriented screens. I have dealt with that by using a two display setup. One landscape and the other turned portrait, just as we do with the camera to take a portrait orientation picture. That allows the HD 16:9 aspect ratio to be maintained. It is a twofer, and relatively cheap at about $150.

3) Hi Mikre, The Sony cameras I have all allow users to choose between 3:2 (traditional 35mm) and 16:9 aspect ratios. Sony has recognized that the HD 16:9 aspect ratio is what most images are viewed at on screen and that is what the world is doing. Display has replaced print as the dominant viewing paradigm. A topic for another thread might be "What aspect ratio do we shoot at, and why?"

Hi Matthew, Are you using engineering workstations at work? The Ultrawide you have at home is interesting, and an odd beastie. Looks like UHD (4k), DCI (4k cinema) and Ultra wide TV all have 2160 pixel height and stretch the horizontal from 3840 for UHD to 5120 for Ultra wide.

Yep, 16:9 is a TV industry compromise, and the LED screen manufacturers (all 4 or 5 of them) are producing 16:9 screens by the hundreds of millions. Economies of scale and competitive pricing pressure make them both high definition and cheap. Other standards/aspect ratios for special applications in non price sensitive environments like engineering will always have a niche.

The price premium of producing other aspect ratios at much lower volumes make them unattractive for general use. There is no better proof of that than Apple abandoning its proprietary 16:10 ratio and adopting the industry standard 16:9 for 5k. That is not something Apple often does. The cost premium for 5k @ 16:10 must have stunned even them. Plus, the resolution of 5k over 4k is invisible at more than a foot or so away, even on a large screen. There were few benefits over HD 4k to lure customers to pay a serious price premium.

4) Hi Addy, remapping image aspect ratios that differ from the native screen aspect ratio by definition causes image degradation. A less than full screen image that maintains 16:9 aspect ratio still maps to native screen hardware. Other ratios do not.

edit: The pixels may be square, but when the display ratio does not match the image ratio, something has to give. They do not map directly 1:1.

5) Allowing a standard HD aspect ratio that matches most screen displays with a smaller file size lets folks use a standard format and means less resizing for Dyxum. There is no down side for anyone.


Cliff, I numbered the points in your post I want to react to

1) Basically you're asking to allow the widest size to be 1280, the current vertical size you're asking is already within the limit

2) It's already a problem and your proposal turns it into an even smaller picture (and bigger problem). Why would we have to be more sympathetic for landscape oriented pictures at the expense of showing portrait pictures smaller. Not everybody has the money or space to set up two screens like you propose.

3) I always shoot native camera 3:2, why throw away pixels, you can still do that in post and my final pictures are in any aspect ratio that works for the composition

4) Just process your pictures within the Dyxum requested size limits and there will never be any image degradation. Anything bigger is a gamble.

5) I don't think this holds for files within the size limits, and the downside is big for any portrait oriented pictures or pictures with an aspect ratio that hit the vertical limit before the horizontal limit.


Your idea works well if everybody shoots landscape oriented pictures with a 16:9 aspect ratio, but just look around the site, the majority of pictures have a different aspect ratio and this should be the choice of the photographer, not the site.

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: addy landzaat
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:24
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

Hi Addy, remapping image aspect ratios that differ from the native screen aspect ratio by definition causes image degradation. A less than full screen image that maintains 16:9 aspect ratio still maps to native screen hardware. Other ratios do not.
I do not get this. The "picture" that is shown on the screen is Dyxum with the picture in there, not just the picture you posted there.

-------------
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:35
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

But I just realized something: Are you intending to link to high-res 16:9 images that have not actually been downsampled by you to 1280x720?


Maintaining an aspect ratio that maps directly to the screen is the issue. Odd mappings like 1024x960 yield a 4:3.75 aspect ratio that overlays a 16:9 on most displays.

I'm not asking to force anyone to change anything they are doing, just to add a simple industry standard option that is a smaller file that directly supports the overwhelming majority of both current screens and those to come, and has native support in Sony cameras.

FUHD (8k 4320p) is also 16:9, so the industry standard aspect ratios are not going anywhere even with 33mp files that will display the full resolution of a 24mp sensor with some left over.   

-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:47
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:


Maintaining an aspect ratio that maps directly to the screen is the issue. Odd mappings like 1024x960 yield a 4:3.75 aspect ratio that overlays a 16:9 on most displays.
Pls explain why. Currently on Dyxum any picture is shown with 1 pixel of the image is 1 pixel on the screen. If you comply with our request to not link to images larger then max 1028 by max 900 there will be no remapping, no overlay, no artifacts. Only if your picture is bigger it will be downsized by your browser (as Mirek explained). The part that is not used by the linked image is simply the dark dyxum website background. I can't see what your proposal would do to change that other then that landscape pictures will be shown broader at the expense of showing portrait oriented pictures smaller.

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 19:56
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

Maintaining an aspect ratio that maps directly to the screen is the issue. Odd mappings like 1024x960 yield a 4:3.75 aspect ratio that overlays a 16:9 on most displays.

Where did you come with the 1024x960 aspect ratio from?
Dyxum imposes maximum width to be no more than 1024 and maximum height to be no more than 900 (unless on high-resolution display where this limit becomes 1000 - as explained above). This has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the photo. If your photo is 1920x1080 then it will be resized proportionally to 1024x576. If your photo is 1080x1920 then it will be resized to about 506x900. In both cases the aspect ratio of 16:9 (or 9:16) will be preserved.

p.s.
Of course we can always discuss the problem of rescaling the photo (i.e. whether the quality is kept or not) but whether it will be scaled down by 1.5 or 1.875 IMO does not really matter.

-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 20:42
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

But I just realized something: Are you intending to link to high-res 16:9 images that have not actually been downsampled by you to 1280x720?

Maintaining an aspect ratio that maps directly to the screen is the issue. Odd mappings like 1024x960 yield a 4:3.75 aspect ratio that overlays a 16:9 on most displays.

I notice you didn't answer yes or no to the question.

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 21:37
I have not asked to make anyone change anything they are doing.

I have asked Dyxum to consider allowing one special case that is the minimum level of industry standard HD screen resolution. Perhaps Dyxum's guidance could could continue to be "Max size 1024x960" and add "or 720p, 1280x720, 16:9 aspect ratio". Dyxum would then allow the specific minimum HD display standard recognized world wide and baked into most of the screens manufactured in recent years or projected into the foreseeable future.

1024x960 comes from http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_page1.html - http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_page1.html

Displaying portrait images on a landscape oriented screen sucks no matter how you jiggle the pixels. Adding a second screen turned to portrait is a cheap and easy solution to the problem. A quick search shows 1080p screens currently as low as $89. That is less than Dyxumers are paying for an SD card, and far less than the cheapest lens Sony sells for E or A mount cameras. It does not get much better than that for a cheap solution to a physical orientation problem.

I have no interest in debating how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin. It does surprise me that a number of folks here are blissfully willing to ignore worldwide display standards that Sony accommodated as a native sensor mode as long ago as the A100.



-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 21:46
So I don't get an answer to my question? Why not?

In the meantime, let's do a practical experiment. I'm posting three 16:9 images in different resolutions:

1920x1080:



1280x720:



960x540:



I'm looking at them on a 1920x1080 monitor using Win7, IE11 and also a recent version of Chrome. What hardware/OS/browsers are you using?

I don't see any aspect ratio issues in any of them under any conditions. What are you seeing, and what exactly is it that you want to see instead?

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 21:56
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

I have not asked to make anyone change anything they are doing.

I have asked Dyxum to consider allowing one special case that is the minimum level of industry standard HD screen resolution. Perhaps Dyxum's guidance could could continue to be "Max size 1024x960" and add "or 720p, 1280x720, 16:9 aspect ratio". Dyxum would then allow the specific minimum HD display standard recognized world wide and baked into most of the screens manufactured in recent years or projected into the foreseeable future.

OK, I think I finally understand what you want. You don't mind the current restrictions in place but allow one extra use case and allow landscape pictures with a 16:9 aspect ratio to be shown at 1280 x 720 independent from the existing restrictions. I'm sorry, unless MiPr tells me differently I don't think the forum software can have multiple dimensions for maximum horizontal/vertical pixels based on the aspect ratio of the linked image. But maybe he can play with the software to do it.


Btw, did you know that if in Firefox you right click the image and click the "view image" option from the drop down menu you'll see only the image, without any restrictions (so the full size of the linked image) and without any Dyxum "clap-trap" around it, just a dark grey background. Maybe that will help you see 16:9 pictures larger then they appear in the standard website background.

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 22:16
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

Btw, did you know that if in Firefox you right click the image and click the top option from the drop down menu you'll see only the image, without any restrictions (so the full size of the linked image) and without any Dyxum "clap-trap" around it, just a dark grey background. Maybe that will help you see 16:9 pictures larger then they appear in the standard website background.

The same thing is available in Chrome, followed by pressing F11 to go to full screen if necessary. It's practically effortless.

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: QuietOC
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 22:18
I don't get why there is a maximum limit at all. The mobile Dyxum code seems to resize all images to fit the browser. I don't see why the desktop code couldn't do the same. I am not very familiar with CSS coding though. I guess the desktop code is trying to maintain 1:1 mapping except with larger images.

1024 pixel wide images look pretty small on my 14" 2560x1440 laptop screen. I imagine they are really tiny on a 4K laptop.

-------------
Sony A7III A6000 HVL-F45RM LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MB-IV MC-11 EF-E II MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q


Posted By: addy landzaat
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 22:23
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

In the meantime, let's do a practical experiment. I'm posting three 16:9 images in different resolutions:

1920x1080:

[snip]

1280x720:

[snip]

960x540:

[snip]

I'm looking at them on a 1920x1080 monitor using Win7, IE11 and also a recent version of Chrome. What hardware/OS/browsers are you using?
I get a horizontal scrollbar with these.....

-------------
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 23:17
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

I'm looking at them on a 1920x1080 monitor using Win7, IE11 and also a recent version of Chrome. What hardware/OS/browsers are you using?
I get a horizontal scrollbar with these...

That's not too helpful unless we know what you're viewing them with. There are no horizontal scroll bars here as long as I make my browser window wide enough. If I make the window too narrow I get one scroll bar under the last line of text, as I would expect.

The first two images are limited to 1024 pixels wide, also as I would expect. The third appears only slightly smaller at 960 pixels wide.

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: neilt3
Date Posted: 09 January 2018 at 23:45
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

In the meantime, let's do a practical experiment. I'm posting three 16:9 images in different resolutions:

1920x1080:

[snip]

1280x720:

[snip]

960x540:

[snip]

I'm looking at them on a 1920x1080 monitor using Win7, IE11 and also a recent version of Chrome. What hardware/OS/browsers are you using?
I get a horizontal scrollbar with these.....


Same here , looking at them on my laptop P.C which has a screen of 1280x800 .
The last image of 960x540 needs just a touch of movement .
If there wasn't the column on the left of the page I wouldn't need to .

In the evening if I'm just on the internet I use the laptop P.C on the sidetable while watching T.V .
I only tend to use my desktop P.C whith it's larger screen when I'm editing images .

I know when I post images they tend to be 1024 on the long edge and I don't need to scroll as there not larger than the screen space available .
So why even the 960 image wasn't showing that you have just posted doesn't make much sense .


-------------
see my photostream on flickr;
https://www.flickr.com/photos/neilt3/sets/ - http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilt3/
C & C welcome.


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 01:35
Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:

Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

I get a horizontal scrollbar with these.....

Same here , looking at them on my laptop P.C which has a screen of 1280x800 .

My small laptop screen (1366x768) often requires scrolling when dyxum images approach the horizontal limit.

I know when I post images they tend to be 1024 on the long edge and I don't need to scroll as there not larger than the screen space available .
So why even the 960 image wasn't showing that you have just posted doesn't make much sense .

What I've sometimes observed here is that the source that hosts the image files can influence at what point scroll bars appear on small screens. My files are hosted on a shared Linux server managed by a web hosting company.

Anyway ...

What I wanted to confirm is that nobody should be experiencing the kinds of aspect ratio distortions mentioned on previous pages. Is anyone experiencing that?

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: addy landzaat
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 07:04
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

I'm looking at them on a 1920x1080 monitor using Win7, IE11 and also a recent version of Chrome. What hardware/OS/browsers are you using?
I get a horizontal scrollbar with these...

That's not too helpful unless we know what you're viewing them with. There are no horizontal scroll bars here as long as I make my browser window wide enough. If I make the window too narrow I get one scroll bar under the last line of text, as I would expect.
Well, your answer doesn't help unless we know what you're viewing them with

And I disagree - a lot of folk say "with all these modern big screens we should allow bigger picture files", my answer simply shows that not everybody uses a screen where you see these bigger pictures. So, it is helpful. My settings are irrelevant in this case.

Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:

In the evening if I'm just on the internet I use the laptop P.C on the sidetable while watching T.V .
I only tend to use my desktop P.C whith it's larger screen when I'm editing images.

That is how I use my laptop and desktop too - my 13" laptop for day to day use and my desktop for the serious stuff like editing images.

Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:

If there wasn't the column on the left of the page I wouldn't need to.

I notice that in this thread I get a column to the left with links to "cameras", "lenses", "last 200 fosum topics" and many more. I do not get these everywhere on Dyxum.

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

My small laptop screen (1366x768) often requires scrolling when dyxum images approach the horizontal limit.

My laptop has a 13" 1920x1080 screen.

-------------
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 07:27
You really need to do this test in one of the picture threads (Open Views/Themed Views/......) since there the most left column (with the Dyxum.com logo at the top) doesn't show and gives more room for the picture to show. On my 1366 wide laptop screen no scroll bar will show there with pictures of max 1024 wide, but does with a picture of 1200 wide.

This is one of the reasons we're careful before increasing the max horizontal size from 1024. We do like most of our viewers to see images on their screen without scroll bars.

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 10:55
Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:

Same here , looking at them on my laptop P.C which has a screen of 1280x800. The last image of 960x540 needs just a touch of movement .
If there wasn't the column on the left of the page I wouldn't need to.

Just click this icon



and feel good Tested on on my 1280x800 Win10 tablet/hybrid (Gee! It's not 16:9 but 16:10! OMG, Dyxum should take this into account - this is industry standard for such devices in the end! )



-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: Miranda F
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 12:33
Okay, my 2p worth.

1. The problem with going wider than around 1000 pixels is that at my normal viewing size the pictures fall off the rh end of the browser, and if I zoom out to see the whole picture I can't easily read the writing anymore. I find this an issue with 1024-wide pics on Dyxum and it would be worse elsewhere.

So, while I agree it would be nice to see images in Dyxum in more detail, if this is done the text should be resized as well (bigger). And while we're at it, can we get rid of the truly awful 1970's DOS black background and go to a more modern white background? And get some smoother text font too? The site looks terribly dated.

2. I'm getting really fed up with the modern trend to ever narrower letterbox formats for TVs and monitors. My work screen is 1920 x 1080 which is useful in giving some desktop area to the left of whatever I'm working on, and quite good for spreadsheets, but I can't read a full-page A4 document (eg datasheet pdf) so I have to keep scrolling it up and down as well as changing pages.

My home monitor is something like 1280x1024 which is near square (the pixels arne't quite square, unfortunately) but is great for portraits. Widescreen monitors maybe great for watching videos but they aren't ideal for anything else. And on TVs you now need to get a stupidly large screen to get the vertical size of an old 26" TV.

3. I agree the space taken up on the LHS by the menu/etc is a nuisance and unnecessarily wastes screen area, particularly on long threads where it is just empty black space. I can't even get wide pictures to expand into it.
But to correct all these things will mean a lot of work for somebody.

4. I sympathise with Cliffe but donlt favour a widescreen exemption. Picture formats vary widely and need to for different images.


-------------
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 12:39
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

3. I agree the space taken up on the LHS by the menu/etc is a nuisance and unnecessarily wastes screen area, particularly on long threads where it is just empty black space. I can't even get wide pictures to expand into it.
But to correct all these things will mean a lot of work for somebody.

The solution to your problem is one click away - see my post above


-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 12:42
Originally posted by MiPr MiPr wrote:

Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

3. I agree the space taken up on the LHS by the menu/etc is a nuisance and unnecessarily wastes screen area, particularly on long threads where it is just empty black space. I can't even get wide pictures to expand into it.
But to correct all these things will mean a lot of work for somebody.

The solution to your problem is one click away - see my post above
And additionally by default it isn't even shown in the picture threads of Open and Themed views. So it's a real non-issue in my mind: In the important forums it isn't shown, and if you want to take it away elsewhere it's just 1 click.

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 12:51
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:


So, while I agree it would be nice to see images in Dyxum in more detail, if this is done the text should be resized as well (bigger). And while we're at it, can we get rid of the truly awful 1970's DOS black background and go to a more modern white background? And get some smoother text font too? The site looks terribly dated.


If you use Firefox just go to settings and change the font type and font size to your liking. I would expect that other browsers offer similar options. The text is not dictated by the Dyxum site software but by your browser settings. So it's a problem you can only solve yourself.

Haven't found it yet, but I think you can also change the background color (b.t.w. I really like the black we have now) and if I find it I'll post it here as well.

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 14:40
If we are looking at images on notebook sized screens nothing matters. They are too small to see anything significant unless we've got our noses pushed right up against them, and that leaves smudges on the screen.

We have changed the way we view photographs from print to display, but we have not investigated what that implies. All our focus has been on the technology in the camera. That is a topic for another thread.

"Resolution of computer monitors
Computers can use pixels to display an image, often an abstract image that represents a GUI. The resolution of this image is called the display resolution and is determined by the video card of the computer. LCD monitors also use pixels to display an image, and have a native resolution. Each pixel is made up of triads, with the number of these triads determining the native resolution.... To produce the sharpest images possible on an LCD, the user must ensure the display resolution of the computer matches the native resolution of the monitor." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel - source

Modern display systems (video cards and monitors) are better at resolving display issues than they used to be (Engineers rock!). But, can we really go so far as to assert that allowing, not forcing, the maintenance of the native aspect ratio from the image in the camera through viewing is worthless?

Camera sensor photosites, aka pixels, are square. LCD screen pixels can be square, and many are, but not always. See the 'Subpixels' heading in the link above. All pixels are not created equal. We confuse the conversation by calling them by the same name. More variations on LCD pixels http://lcdtech.info/en/tests/lcd.pixels.structure.htm - here (scroll down).

I am surprised. I asked for something simple, that a single high definition world wide display standard be allowed, not forced, in Dyxum displays whose stated current constraints are driven by lowest common denominator bandwidth, file download size. It did not seem controversial, the file size is smaller than the current Dyxum limit and it embraced a display standard. From the response you'd think I introduced woolen and cotton mills in the early 1800's.


-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 15:06
Cliff, I'm afraid I still do not get your point. The size ("resolution" - how this term was "stolen" and overused for the purpose that is only vaguely related to the proper meaning is a good topic for another discussion) of the photo has nothing to do with the screen "resolution" or screen display ratio, unless you want to watch the photo full-screen in which case it would make sense to prepare the photo in the "resolution" that fits the display. Any photo with the size lower than the size of the screen will show exactly as it was intended (although the smaller the bigger the screen is). Quality degradation may appear only when scaling such photos.

BTW, in the information you provided above (Wiki quotes) I see no reference to picture sizes or picture "ratios". Only hardware is discussed (i.e. graphic card, display, etc.).

EDITED:
But to summarize - plese correct me if I'm wrong- your real problem is that:
1) You want your photos to be displayed big,
2) You prefer to watch them full-screen,
3) You want Dyxum to adopt to this and allow photo sizes around full HD (why not 4k?)
4) You refuse to accept any reasonable explanations because you have big screens and high-speed internet and so you don't care about others who still use smaller screens and slower network. Have I mentioned my feelings when waiting until Dyxum page loads because somebody posted full-size-24MP JPG with little compression (quality!) - they are not positive


-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 15:08
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:


I am surprised. I asked for something simple, that a single high definition world wide display standard be allowed, not forced, in Dyxum displays whose stated current constraints are driven by lowest common denominator bandwidth, file download size. It did not seem controversial, the file size is smaller than the current Dyxum limit and it embraced a display standard. From the response you'd think I introduced woolen and cotton mills in the early 1800's.
Cliff, please read what we wrote and don't misquote us. The main consideration for the size limits in pixels is set by the display sizes our viewers are using, and file size (to preserve bandwith) is a secundary (but still important) consideration.

Secondly you don't answer questions people ask in this thread, don't respond to suggestions/remarks we make but just keep harping the same points and then blaming us for not willing to listen, followed by derrogatory/cynical remarks.

I must say that doesn't help solving your "problem" and it's not in the spirit of the site.

So as promised here we will keep looking how to increase the size limits for showing images on the site, but from now on I won't be specifically addressing your concerns anymore.


-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: Miranda F
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 15:48
Originally posted by MiPr MiPr wrote:

Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

3. I agree the space taken up on the LHS by the menu/etc is a nuisance and unnecessarily wastes screen area, particularly on long threads where it is just empty black space. I can't even get wide pictures to expand into it.
But to correct all these things will mean a lot of work for somebody.

The solution to your problem is one click away - see my post above


Oh, wow! Never knew that!
Thanks, MiPr. I shall use that button in future!

-------------
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 16:35
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

I'm looking at them on a 1920x1080 monitor using Win7, IE11 and also a recent version of Chrome. What hardware/OS/browsers are you using?
I get a horizontal scrollbar with these...
That's not too helpful unless we know what you're viewing them with.
Well, your answer doesn't help unless we know what you're viewing them with.

Twice already I've told you what I'm viewing them with. It's still right there in the text you quoted. Now it's three times.

Long after the comment you first made, you actually said something about what you're using, so thanks for that.

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 16:47
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

Cliff, please read what we wrote and don't misquote us. The main consideration for the size limits in pixels is set by the display sizes our viewers are using, and file size (to preserve bandwith) is a secundary (but still important) consideration.

Secondly you don't answer questions people ask in this thread, don't respond to suggestions/remarks we make but just keep harping the same points and then blaming us for not willing to listen, followed by derrogatory/cynical remarks.

I have already demonstrated that his complaint about aspect ratio distortion is meaningless. I have never seen any such distortion in anyone's images here. And since he refuses to respond to my earlier question about what he intends to do if the limits are changed, I hypothesize that he wants to create links to files that far exceed any possible dyxum restrictions, and does not want to manually downsample them first. I don't know what else to think about all this.

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 16:51
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

I hypothesize that he wants to create links to files that far exceed any possible dyxum restrictions, and does not want to manually downsample them first. I don't know what else to think about all this.

My wild guess is that all may be caused by misinterpretation of the following Wiki info:

Originally posted by Wikipedia Wikipedia wrote:

To produce the sharpest images possible on an LCD, the user must ensure the display resolution of the computer matches the native resolution of the monitor


It's a long shot thought


-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: sybersitizen
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 16:55
Originally posted by pegelli pegelli wrote:

You really need to do this test in one of the picture threads (Open Views/Themed Views/......) since there the most left column (with the Dyxum.com logo at the top) doesn't show and gives more room for the picture to show.

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic130549_post1521628.html#1521628 - Done!

-------------
http://thesybersite.com -


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 17:10
Interesting, does that get back to the Dyxum request that we submit smaller files and that Dyxum's scripts do not themselves resize images? However, the Dyxum guidance does indicate that Dyxum expends time and effort resizing images before judging. May be two different issues.

If Dyxum simply requests the end users browser to resize that does nothing to help users with limited bandwidth. The entire file is transmitted, and it is only the display that is downsized. Internal display bandwidth is not the problem. If that is the case, why bother? Go directly to file sizes to respect bandwidth limitations.
I'd suggest adding an option for basic HD images at 1280x720. Here's how the whole thing would look as you described in the language I use to avoid me making syntax errors.

current logic and add basic HD:
If HD-width and HD-height = image-width and image-height then exit
Elseif image-width or image-height > Dyxummax-width or Dyxummax-height

.msgBody img, .PMmsgBody img {
    max-width: 1024px;
    height: auto;
    max-height: 900px;
    margin: 0px;
    padding: 0px;
}
Endif

or perhaps when Dyxum image linking to remote source files remove the browser resizing request and replace it with a line to enforce image file sizes (currently a little less than 1mb).

If imagesize > max-size exit and show error message
    link remote image
Endif

edit: MiPr this was in response to your post at 3:33 on page 2. Sorry it's so far removed from that.

-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: MiPr
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 17:39
Originally posted by Cliff Cliff wrote:

If Dyxum simply requests the end users browser to resize that does nothing to help users with limited bandwidth. The entire file is transmitted, and it is only the display that is downsized.

That's exactly the case, and I'm glad you've finally found a few spare minutes to read our answers
And yes, this does not help people with limited bandwidth and yes - this is quite frustrating at times (and for me personally).

Internal display bandwidth is not the problem. If that is the case, why bother?

No "internal bandwidth". The hot-linked photo is passed directly from the hosting site to the end-user's browser - it does not go through Dyxum at all. Why bother? This has been answered numerous times.

Go directly to file sizes to respect bandwidth limitations.
I'd suggest adding an option for basic HD images at 1280x720. Here's how the whole thing would look as you described in the language I use to avoid me making syntax errors.

Dyxum runs on a third-party software, not our homebrew. Not easy to hack it and there is always some penalty at the end of this (like problems with updates, broken compatibility, etc.)


current logic and add basic HD:
If HD-width and HD-height = image-width and image-height then exit
Elseif image-width or image-height > Dyxummax-width or Dyxummax-height

.msgBody img, .PMmsgBody img {
    max-width: 1024px;
    height: auto;
    max-height: 900px;
    margin: 0px;
    padding: 0px;
}
Endif

That's a nice one: create one-off "pass" that fits your particular needs The problem is most probably we would need as many such passes as there are Dyxumers Proper solution would be to scale the image to the size of the viewport.

or perhaps when Dyxum image linking to remote source files remove the browser resizing request and replace it with a line to enforce image file sizes (currently a little less than 1mb).

If imagesize > max-size exit and show error message
    link remote image
Endif

Hmm, that's interesting: how to check file size from JavaScript before actually downloading the file from a third-party site. Probably can be done - need to look for the solution. Personally I would love to implement such feature - just to cut off those who do not care about other's bandwidth



-------------
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... |   BTW, topic87334.html - Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...


Posted By: neilt3
Date Posted: 10 January 2018 at 19:19
Originally posted by MiPr MiPr wrote:

Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:

Same here , looking at them on my laptop P.C which has a screen of 1280x800. The last image of 960x540 needs just a touch of movement .
If there wasn't the column on the left of the page I wouldn't need to.

Just click this icon



and feel good Tested on on my 1280x800 Win10 tablet/hybrid (Gee! It's not 16:9 but 16:10! OMG, Dyxum should take this into account - this is industry standard for such devices in the end! )



Eeee , fancy that eh !
Now they all fit on the screen with the last one being a bit smaller .

Often what that symbol in the corner was for .

-------------
see my photostream on flickr;
https://www.flickr.com/photos/neilt3/sets/ - http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilt3/
C & C welcome.


Posted By: mpb
Date Posted: 11 January 2018 at 08:43
Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:


Eeee , fancy that eh !
Now they all fit on the screen with the last one being a bit smaller .

Often what that symbol in the corner was for .


Ditto.

-------------
Mark


Posted By: stiuskr
Date Posted: 11 January 2018 at 12:27
Originally posted by mpb mpb wrote:

Originally posted by neilt3 neilt3 wrote:


Eeee , fancy that eh !
Now they all fit on the screen with the last one being a bit smaller .

Often what that symbol in the corner was for .


Ditto.


If you hover the cursor over it, it will tell you.

-------------
Rob Suits Jr.
a99M2 a99 a77 a700 KM7D|Min24/2.8 Min35/2 So50/1.4 So50/2.8 Min85/1.4G Tam90/2.8 Tam180/3.5|Tam17-50 CZ24-70G2 KM28-75D So70-200G1 So70-300G So70-400G1| SonyF60 AD200R2


Posted By: Miranda F
Date Posted: 11 January 2018 at 15:55
So, to summarise (correct me if I'm wrong):

1. Dyxum contains code to force the browser to set the normal (100% view) of images to be a maximum of something like 1024 wide and 900 high (I got lost in the discussion about exceptions).
Posting smaller images or thumbnails is good practice when appropriate.
If you post larger images, they get shown the same size but cost the user more bandwidth downloading (a decreasing issue for most of us, I expect, though may be of particular relevance to mobile users); OTOH it does allow people to zoom in more without pixellation. This may be useful on some occasions (eg to see camera/lens problems), and to some users with wide screens.

2. There is nothing to stop you posting images of any aspect ratio, and if they are widescreen you can post them wider than 1024 without excess bandwidth; Dyxum will tell the browser to resize the pics but you can override that if you wish, answering Cliffe's problem.

3. There is no kind of distortion introduced by Dyxum or your browser in this, except what is involved in resizing itself.

4. You can adjust or maximise the image size to suit viewing, including the little button in the top right.

So it looks to me like the problem Cliffe raised is already dealt with. Right?




-------------
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .


Posted By: Cliff
Date Posted: 25 December 2018 at 21:47
Thank you Miranda F.

It is disappointing that Dyxum has yet to accommodate, encourage or even acknowledge basic, industry standard, HD screen resolutions that produce images that are about the same size as or smaller than the Dyxum approved image size limits. On the off chance that anyone is interested in Dyxum encouraging photographs that map directly to native HD 16:9 display standards and monitor construction, the link to my prior post in Miranda F's post details HD screen resolutions and image size specifics.

I had hopes that in the year since the prior discussion the light bulb would have come on for some in the Dyxum administrative hierarchy and that we would have some "resolution". But, alas, it has not happened.

Merry Christmas to all.

-------------
Contax RF, Minolta7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 25 December 2018 at 22:01
Hi Cliff,

Merry Christmas to you too.

Just to let you know, our lights are on (yes, all bulbs) and if you want to show images in the HD aspect ratio of 16:9 just make them 1024 x 576 and the job is done.

And if you don't and make them 16:9 but larger the forum app will shrink them to that size when shown on the forum, but if someone wants to see them larger then right-clicking on them and choosing "show image" will show them in the size you are hosting them or shrunk limited by the screen real-estate of the viewer. Only people with limited bandwith might see your images loading slower.

I hope your bulbs will come on now as well

-------------
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/picture-size-for-posting_topic114856_post1379537.html#1379537 - see here


Posted By: overeema
Date Posted: 25 February 2020 at 22:50
Originally posted by nandbytes nandbytes wrote:

interesting point about web-sized displays and theft. I am currently in process of designing my website for pictures (have been for last 3 months ), I am relying on wordpress plugins to resize and they work pretty well as far as I can tell.

Otherwise I normally just use lightroom to downsize my images (to about 4mp) and flickr to downsize it further when posting on here.

I use photorazor to downsize images.I simple free programm that can downsize a whole map of pictures in one pass.

-------------
minolta owner since 1969; A350-SAL1680Z-SAL70300G-Tamron60F2-Minolta100F2-Minolta35105-Minolta28135-Minolta50F1.7; NEX6-SELP1650-SELP18105G (and some minolta MC/MD glass )



Print Page | Close Window