Picture size for posting

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Edited by Cliff - 09 January 2018 at 19:07

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?

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.