 Posted 3/1/2007 6:29:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Good morning everyone. I am fairley new to the site and really enjoy the interaction with fellow photo buffs. I would however like to be able to upload larger images and just have less of them .Does anyone else agree? Is this possible ? I think that using such low resolution files makes them look some what out of focus and to grainey.
Paul T:
|
|
|
Posted 3/6/2007 3:27:15 AM
|
|
|
|
| Hi whitehawk, and welcome to DA. I think most of my images look better in versions larger than 640 pixels limits them to. But be mindful that the larger the size of images posted on the internet the more attractive they become to people who would steal them and use them in violation of the photographer's copyright. Many of our better photographers here at DA are concerned about that. And 1024x768 is still the most widely used screen resolution, so anything much larger than 640 would require scrolling by many users to view all of your image.
|
|
|
Posted 3/6/2007 9:02:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Technically speaking, uploading at a size larger than the display leaves you at the whim of the rendering engine of the viewers display system.
Let's assume that you upload at 800x600 dpi and the display size is 640x480.
For every 5 pixels (640/800=1.25 or 1 in 5 pixels) the rendering engine is somehow going to have to decide what color/intensity the pixel is going to have to be in order to present the most true image to the input data. That decision can make or break an image. Increase the size of that donor image and the frequency of the decision being made increases. While that may seem like a bad thing at some point the decisions are being made at some harmonic of of the donor image and all appears normal. Get out of phase by 1/3, however, and you have a real mess on your hands. There are frequencies that that, depending on the rendering engine, can cause some serious problems with the displayed image.
WillPat is right in that most people have their displays set to 1024x768. I've tried to calculate this before but I still haven't figured out what the number of pixels that a display set at 1024x 768 renders at. In theory, the optimum size=Allowed number of pixels on a 1024x768 screen.
As it is I post at 640 by 480 but I'm betting that there is a more perfect size. (More perfect??? LOL My English teacher would have a field day with me.)
|
|
|
Posted 3/8/2007 5:59:34 AM
|
|
|
|
| Good morning all. Thanks for the response,in retrospect you are both right the piracy issue is a problem but I would have guessed that by now most photo buffs would have purchased a large 19 or 20 inch monitor.Oh well thanks again for the replies and have a great day. Paul
Paul T:
|
|
|
Posted 4/3/2007 8:01:46 AM
|
|
|
|
chrisbnp (3/6/2007)
Technically speaking, uploading at a size larger than the display leaves you at the whim of the rendering engine of the viewers display system.
Umm. Your points would apply only if monitors stretched images to cover the full screen. And some Web sites screw up and display images at some size other than their actual size, producing distortions.
But I haven't seen a monitor do that by default.
And unless forced to by badly written HTML code, an image will take up however many pixels it needs, and no more. From what I've seen at DA, it displays images at their actual size, not forced to some arbitrary size.
For example, a 640 x 480 image shown on an 800 x 600 screen will leave 160 pixels blank in the horizontal direction and 120 blank in the vertical direction.
That's why images look smaller on higher-resolution screens: there's more blank space.
My DA profile | My complete portfolio | My prints for sale
|
|
|
|
