28 replies to this topic

[Snarwin]

I just took a screenshot of this thread as it displays on my 1024x768 laptop monitor and used GIMP to measure the default width of a post. It came out to 766 pixels. So yes, an 800-pixel wide image is enough to cause a horizontal scrollbar at a "normal" resolution, if only by a little bit.

Also, off-topic, I'd like to thank ShadowTiger for pointing me to the ImageZoom extension for Firefox. Definitely a permanent addition to my collection.

[ShadowTiger]

I know, I seriously can't live without it. I sneak it onto school computers whenever possible. People delight in the new additions, and whenever the professor tries to get someone to enlarge an image by downloading it and zooming in on firefox, the student just tells them to right-click on the image and zoom in. When the professor can't do it, we take a half hour break to figure it out. It's great.

600 for all images? Even better. Ever so delightful. So the important thing is to ensure that the images have a good pixels per inch value to be cleanly visible when enlarged, if using Imagezoom. Useful, if unnecessary.

[Snarwin]

Pixels-per-inch is a property of monitors, not individual images. Unless you're using a vector format like SVG, the pixels you see at 100% zoom (ie, normal size) are all the pixels you get.

One thing I can think of that would affect the clarity of a zoomed-in image, though, is compression artifacts.

[Siguy]

I just took a screenshot of this thread as it displays on my 1024x768 laptop monitor and used GIMP to measure the default width of a post. It came out to 766 pixels. So yes, an 800-pixel wide image is enough to cause a horizontal scrollbar at a "normal" resolution, if only by a little bit.

Also, off-topic, I'd like to thank ShadowTiger for pointing me to the ImageZoom extension for Firefox. Definitely a permanent addition to my collection.

So in that case image size limit should be 750px or so, not 600.

So few people use 1024x768 anymore. Almost all LCD monitors including laptop screens are now at least 1366x768.

Not to mention that PZC treats horizontal scroll bars like a criminal offense. Seriously, when have you ever been seriously annoyed by having to scroll a few pixels to the right to see an entire image?

[ShadowTiger]

My theory is that it's the same concept as women having to wear bras. Men and women have breasts, sure, so why do only women have to cover them? Men and women occasionally have fat bellies, but men have bigger ones than women most of the time. Why don't they have to cover them because they're bigger?

Slippery slope. It's keeping anarchy in check. Just a theory though; a little idle stipulation.

[Lemon]

I haven't read the thread since my last post and than read ShadowTigers comment and literally laughed out loud.

Women wear bras because it's physically uncomfortable to have the weight on your chest (more so if they are larger) and the extra support just alleviates that. I don't think a mans breast will be quite as floppy and heavy on the chest. Plus I for one would feel very silly in a bra.

[ShadowTiger]

I haven't read the thread since my last post and than read ShadowTigers comment and literally laughed out loud.

That's pretty much what I'm here for. That, and the occasional joke that is actually good.

Women wear bras because it's physically uncomfortable to have the weight on your chest (more so if they are larger) and the extra support just alleviates that.

Indeed indeed, though there are inevitably several social ramifications of flopping about. There are one or two episodes of Seinfeld based on that. If Seinfeld brings it to the public eye, it's not a nothing, despite that it is a show about nothing.

Plus I for one would feel very silly in a bra.

I feel silly whenever I go outside in anything, but there are still social etiquette rules that we have to abide by. When you're working in a store, and a customer insults you, more often than not, you'll get sacked if you retaliate or do anything other than grovel for forgiveness. You'd think that all humans would be equal by now, and free to make their own decisions and give a gentle sway to the rules of our social reality, but that day has sadly not yet arrived.

I am looking forward to it just as much as you are, believe me. But I've been down a slippery slope or two, and had to climb my way back out. Never pretty.

[Snarwin]

So few people use 1024x768 anymore. Almost all LCD monitors including laptop screens are now at least 1366x768.

Speak for yourself. The display on my four-year-old laptop--which, I might add, I have no intention of replacing any time soon--has a maximum resolution of 1024x768.

I do agree that there are other values for the dimension limit that would've made more sense, though--if I had to decide, I'd probably go for 640 instead of 600, to accommodate 640x480 (ie, 480p) images.

[ShadowTiger]

I can definitely agree with that. 600 is easier to remember, (Think of every single customer you've ever had, working with human beings who cannot or simply do not read signs.) but 640 is slightly more accommodating. Not that people are that likely to go nuts if you go 40 pixels (*GASP*) over a very slightly arbitrary image size limitation. I know I sure don't care if you go maybe 30 or less pixels over. It's not going to kill anyone if you do. Hyperbole aside, graham crackers are delicious.




No. You know what was ridiculous? The gravedigging rule. I am SO GLAD that Matt and I (Back in the day) fought for its destruction. Now that we can post in topics because our post is relevant to the topic at hand, without fearing that a topic has aged too far and our ideas made null and having to start a new topic for the same exact thing, ... we can be rational again! Isn't that just completely fantastic?


So here we are, trying to figure out what the rationality is behind an image size limitation on these forums. We have factors such as horizontal scroll bars being annoying to certain people and not annoying to others, and we have people whose screen resolution varies greatly and some who cannot or will not (Not a very practical difference at this point.) change their resolution to accommodate anything.

Well, you know what I have to say? May this be the most difficult decision we will ever face.

Because, if you think about it, there are far greater issues to be dealt with here. I mean, whenever a cow or a termite lets out that noxious air from its backside, the world's ozone supply degrades just a little bit. Dairy farms and old rotting houses are killing the world. Let's buy cowplugs in bulk and take a trip out to Wisconsin or Oklahoma. That ought to buy us a couple of years. Arguing / Debating / Discussing horizontal scroll bars sure won't give our kids a place in that fancy new Elemental school with the hand dryers in the bathrooms that you don't have to touch to get the paper towel out of. Those things are so rad.

[Nathaniel]

I have no plans to stretch the limits any further. If I give an inch, I am not gonna change my mind and give another yard. It's a matter of principle. And that will only change if we overrule our previous decisions, which I have no plans to do. Either way, we try to make decisions that we generally agree on. I found the complaints pretty valid. The main point though is this: There is no good reason why people need to embed huge images. A picture may say a thousand words, but an enlarged version of that same image still says a thousand words.

[ShadowTiger]

And, again, if need be, you can enlarge individual images to suit your preferred viewing range.

Safari

And for Opera: (Source)

try opera for zooming. complete control. you can take a page from 10% to 1000%

while you're browsing, the numbers 6,7,8,9,0 control the zoom.

6 set to 100%
7 adjust zoom -100%
8 adjust zoom +100%
9 adjust zoom -10%
0 adjust zoom +10%

[Lemon]

That's pretty much what I'm here for. That, and the occasional joke that is actually good.

Indeed indeed, though there are inevitably several social ramifications of flopping about. There are one or two episodes of Seinfeld based on that. If Seinfeld brings it to the public eye, it's not a nothing, despite that it is a show about nothing.

I actually had a girl friend* over my shoulder informing me about that tidbit about bras, and she was quite adamant that while there are social stigmas about it, it's mostly a comfort thing.

Also, that last bit sounds like you should join a small anarchic group. The big problem with society (and why it kinda works but only by pissing off everyone in someway) is that it forces us to abide by rules that don't really apply to us. I'm usually pretty comfy in walking outside with clothes though... hm. This is getting fairly off topic...

Yes! Image restrictions changes. Good thing. Good thing.


*not to be confused with girlfriend. I just don't want to bother with coming up with an alternative way of saying that.

Edited by Lemon, 14 April 2010 - 08:35 PM.

[catfriedrice]

I'm still surprised the board doesn't have the feature that resizes large images automatically and gives you the option to click on it to see the full thing.

[Koopa]

(deleted)

Edited by Koopa, 19 April 2010 - 02:14 PM.