Picture size for posting |
Page <1 23456> |
Author | ||
sybersitizen ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 04 August 2006 Country: United States Location: California Status: Offline Posts: 14457 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
||
pegelli ![]() Admin Group ![]() Dyxum Administrator Joined: 02 June 2007 Country: Belgium Location: Schilde Status: Offline Posts: 38605 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
You can see the April Foolishness 2023 exhibition here Another great show of the talent we have on Dyxum
|
||
![]() |
||
addy landzaat ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 22 April 2006 Country: Netherlands Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Posts: 15868 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
||
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
|
||
![]() |
||
Cliff ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 01 November 2006 Country: United States Location: Richmond Va Status: Offline Posts: 709 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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
|
||
![]() |
||
pegelli ![]() Admin Group ![]() Dyxum Administrator Joined: 02 June 2007 Country: Belgium Location: Schilde Status: Offline Posts: 38605 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
||
You can see the April Foolishness 2023 exhibition here Another great show of the talent we have on Dyxum
|
||
![]() |
||
MiPr ![]() Admin Group ![]() Mikre Dyxum Administrator Joined: 25 August 2006 Country: Poland Location: Wroclaw Status: Offline Posts: 22298 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. Edited by MiPr - 09 January 2018 at 20:08 |
||
I'm noise-blind. And noise-about-noise-deaf too ... | BTW, Dyxum Weekly Exhibitions don't grow on trees ...
|
||
![]() |
||
sybersitizen ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 04 August 2006 Country: United States Location: California Status: Offline Posts: 14457 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I notice you didn't answer yes or no to the question. |
||
![]() |
||
Cliff ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 01 November 2006 Country: United States Location: Richmond Va Status: Offline Posts: 709 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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 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. Edited by Cliff - 09 January 2018 at 21:40 |
||
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
|
||
![]() |
||
sybersitizen ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 04 August 2006 Country: United States Location: California Status: Offline Posts: 14457 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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? |
||
![]() |
||
pegelli ![]() Admin Group ![]() Dyxum Administrator Joined: 02 June 2007 Country: Belgium Location: Schilde Status: Offline Posts: 38605 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. Edited by pegelli - 09 January 2018 at 22:15 |
||
You can see the April Foolishness 2023 exhibition here Another great show of the talent we have on Dyxum
|
||
![]() |
||
sybersitizen ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 04 August 2006 Country: United States Location: California Status: Offline Posts: 14457 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The same thing is available in Chrome, followed by pressing F11 to go to full screen if necessary. It's practically effortless. |
||
![]() |
||
QuietOC ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 28 February 2015 Country: United States Location: Michigan Status: Offline Posts: 3727 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. Edited by QuietOC - 09 January 2018 at 22:25 |
||
Sony A7RIV LA-EA5
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 |
||
![]() |
||
addy landzaat ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 22 April 2006 Country: Netherlands Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Posts: 15868 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
||
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
|
||
![]() |
||
sybersitizen ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 04 August 2006 Country: United States Location: California Status: Offline Posts: 14457 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
Page <1 23456> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.108 seconds.

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer
In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania
Feel free to contact us if needed.