Picture size for posting

neilt3 wrote: 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?

Edited by sybersitizen - 10 January 2018 at 02:20

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.

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.

MiPr wrote: 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.

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." 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 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.

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.


Edited by pegelli - 10 January 2018 at 15:19

addy landzaat wrote: sybersitizen wrote: addy landzaat wrote: 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.