I realize that when an image turns out really well, you would like to have it displayed so that all the details can be enjoyed to their fullest. But I wonder how many folks realize that this makes it especially difficult to view for some people?

Those of us who use 800 x 600 have to scroll back and forth to see the whole image. And the large sizes take a long time to show up on some screens.

Perhaps you folks have a really fast internet connection speed. But some of us are on regular dial up, and that, at times, can be really poor. Today and most of this week, I seem to have the slowest connection in the world. There are images I would like to look at and comment on. But there is one today that I noticed is 1637 wide, and I am having to wait forever just to get the 800 wide images to load. So I will have to pass on opening these larger images. I'm not able to get a faster connection at this time, I have to stick with what I have, but it sure makes browsing the net a lot less fun, for me anyway. Just my own personal thought, don't be offended, please. By all means, post at whatever size you want; it's just a thought.

I tend to post a lot of stuff that is bigger than the standard 800x600 mainly because I work big to start with and dont want to lose detail.

I try to keep the file size under 250Kb on all images though. So that people with slower connections can have a chance at looking at them also. A lot of the time I shrink the image dimensions rather than go above 250Kb file size. But if I believe the image really should be seen at a larger size then I will sometimes post it at full dimensions with a larger file size.

I know a 2000x1000 size image or whatever is hard to see properly if you have a 800x600 screen but sometimes I just have a need to post something BIG!!!

Matt.

Message edited on: 06/26/2004 11:48

Message edited on: 06/26/2004 11:49

Working "large" is good for catching details on an image that might be missed before printing and for the purpose of submitting them to a print house but, I think, the excessive amount of jpeg compression required to get the file size down for uploading to Rendo may defeat the purpose. I've seen a number of impessive looking thumbs of huge images (not your's particularly, Matt, you usually post some really good-looking stuff) that, when I clicked on them for a closer look, turned out to be somewhat disappointing due to a lot of blurring and, ironically, loss of the very detail and sharpness the artist was probably aiming for. Many times, using a "sharpen" filter in a graphics program such as PSP or Photoshop, tends to make the images' brighter colors a bit garish to my eye - expecially with rendered flames - and can undo the anti-aliasing a bit. At least that's been my experience. Might have something to do with my relative ineptness at finding the proper density and over-sampling settings for Apo flames, too! lol - or my lack of knowlege on "unsharp" mask technique. I run a 1024x768 screen resolution - the most widely used - on my rig and try to scale my posts so that the image can be seen in its entirety (800x600 seems to fit just right)at Rendo for folks using that resolution. I make all of my images 1024x768 or "X"x768 so that I can use them as wallpaper. I used to render 1024x768's up to like 2048x1536 or bigger with anti-aliasing and then resize these monsters to 1024x768 and 800x600. I've since found that merely rendering my 444x333 working image in UF up to 1024x768 with A-A works just as well, saves a bunch of disk space and - very importantly - TIME. I have a broadband connection, so larger images aren't much of a problem for me - though I tend to agree with Maria that it is a bit of a bummer, sometimes, to have to scroll around to see everything but really, the thumb has usually shown me the entire image and its impression carries over to the larger image - unless its one of those "detail" thumbs. Rick

I tend to sharpen every image I post in Photoshop to some extent, Rick. I never write under an image 'sharpened in Photoshop' anymore because I don't see it as post-work, more of a necessity to every image I make. Sometimes it does bugger the image up a bit which is why I always duplicate it onto a new layer and then sharpen the bottom one. All you have to do then is adjust the opacity of the top layer until you get the right amount of sharpening. Matt

Hey - cool tip, Matt - thanks! I've done some layer opacity stuff with PS to make flames more substantial in re-layered composition images, but it never dawned on me to use it as a sharpening tool. Rick

I to work on a large scale in PSP, but I always resize them to 800x600, so they are visible in one screen. working with big sizes images is good for personal use, resize them will give a bit protection for the owner. the 800x600 size is vieuwer friendly and for the most of them faster to get them on screen. I use cable and upload big files is no problem, its only difficult to see a image properly when you have to use the scrollwheel. RS

Attached Link: http://darkchrystal.deviantart.com/

I just wrote a rather long post and when I clicked "Post Reply" I was transported back to forum index. No post by me here. FUCK!!!!! Anyway... here's a shortened down version of what I wrote: 800x600 = absurd resolusion, everything on the internet looks like shit, ruins details of fractals wich is their main attraction. 450KB images = This is not necessary, could often be reduced to around 150KB without ruining the render especially when the image itself is 1024x768.

It's just bad web practice to post a very large image. You should never have to scroll in both directions. Up and down, sure. Left and right is OK too, but never both. What's the point? I mean, I am impressed that people can render with such largeness, but if I have to scroll around to see it I am not impressed at all. It shows a lack of web experience and a lack of consideration for people with slow connections. Look at any professional gallery and see that you never have to scroll. One of the reasons for that is that large impressive images are easy to steal and print.

Keith, I agree with you on the image sizes if you are posting on a regular web-site, but this is an artists member web-site.

The bigger the monitor and screen resolution you have then the easier it is to work on images. As such a good percentage of the people who are viewing the images here will be able to see a 1280x960 image in one hit without scrolling and will also accept that larger images mean larger file sizes. Also, as artists themselves, they will prefer to see the image as the creator envisioned it.

I try to accomodate people with slower connections by keeping the file size as low as possible, but I want people to see my images as close as possible to how I think they should be. These days there really isn't a reason why an artist should still be using 800x600 resolution. I accept that there are people still using it, but why should I compromise myself to accommodate the few that are?

It's not a lack of consideration. It's merely wanting to show things as they should be seen.

Matt.

Message edited on: 06/27/2004 17:04

Hey Gan - I've had the same thing happen where when I post a - as usual with me! lol - long reply to a forum thread, it sends me to the forum index. What I do is just click "Back" and hit post reply again and it then seems to work correctly. Once, however, when I went to see if the reply made it, there were 2 copies of my message so I just deleted one of them. Must be some weird thing happening that's maybe related to the 2000 character limit on IM's? Just guessing, but it IS a bit of a hassle. Rick

Matt, I agree with you, but I have never seen you do an image like what Maria was referring to. I want my images to be seen all at once, within reason. Having to scroll around is like expecting someone to look at your image through a toilet paper roll, but it's a trade off. We should feel free to do what we want. I just uploaded an image that needs a left and right scroll. The point of the image was to show perspective, so I did it that way on purpose. The trouble is that most of the very large images here don't have a good reason to be large, at least that I can see. Most Apo and UF users work small and render large, so the idea of seeing the original creation doesn't hold up. They're big just for the sake of being big. I guess if one is willing to take the chance of loosing whatever point a large image has to the irritation of people with slow connetions, or to people like me who click out in a hurry, no problem. Keith

Must admit i've seen a couple of big images this week that could have been cropped and reduced in size without any trouble at all. I guess it just isn't as frustrating to me because I have a DSL connection. When I had dial-up I always looked at the image dimensions and the thumbnail more carefully before deciding if I wanted to look at the bigger image. It's surprising how quickly you forget what dial-up is like. I used a friends connection a couple of weeks ago and was cursing at the screen because it took more than 3 seconds to load a web page, lol. Matt.

Simple solution. Post a smaller image and link to a large one that's at higher res. Then the person has the option of clicking on the link.

A most excellent suggestion, Mindy :)

hmm 1422x500 is a very odd screen size, keith LOL

Well, this has been interesting. Gee, I didn't realize that I was such a dinosaur! Is 1024x768 really the most widely used screen size?? I would be curious to know what everyone around here uses. I have tried it, and whereas it might be great for sites like this one here, it really messes up the way other applications on my pc are viewed, and severely messes with my mind, so I changed it back to 800x600. Sure I work big when creating graphics sometimes, and render large, 2000xwhatever or more, and view in web browser to see details and areas that need to be changed, before I size it back down. But I still have to scroll to see those details. And unless my monitor could be a full 24" across, I really can't see the point of making those graphics that large. Plus, the original .bmp files that I have saved at that large size, sure are taking up a lot of hard drive space. With a 12, 15, or 17" monitor, you still can't see all those details as nicely as you might like. You just see what fits inside your monitor, no matter what resolution you have chosen. I have seen web sites that say this site best viewed at 1024, but most seem to be designed for 800. Posting a link to a larger image is a cool idea, but that would mean having your own web site or another gallery somewhere else, which might not be convenient for some. Matt, you said it's easy to forget how slow dial up was. So, how fast do your web pages show up? (asking this while I drool with envy, lol). If the image provoked enough curiosity, it will get clicked on, no matter the size or one's internet connection speed, I suppose. :) Maria

one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand, four one thousand, five...loaded. This page loaded in approx 5 seconds, from cold :O) I only have a 512KBs connection. I want at least a 1MBs connection but unfortunately this phone line won't support it. A 1MB file will download in about 20 seconds on here. The main reason I got it was not only to make it easier to browse web-sites like this but also to cut down on phone bills. I phone friends and relatives in America regularly from here in England which can get expensive. With a DSL connection and internet phone software I can call a land line in America for only $1.25 PER HOUR!!! and a cell phone for about $1.50 per hour. With the exchange rate of dollars to the pound...It's a bargain :OD Matt.

well 1024x768 is a bit big though, dont think it will fit the entire screen, for ya have the scroll bar at the side, and the status bar underneath, the address bar up and the bookmarks bar too ... so if you calculate everything that 1024x768 doesn't fit at all .. then better use 900x675 as a standard, which i do mostly for flash, not too small and not too big smile Harmen

My screen is at 1024 x 768. I work at other sizes, render at 1600x1200 and reduce to 800 x 600 for posting, so as to leave room for the toolbar and sidebar, etc. It seems to work for me. :)

As we discussed webpages, all my images exist in three sizes. A thumbnail in 150x113, a preview version in 500x375 and the large version, anything between 1024x768 - 1600x1200. I don't resize them myself, I have a script on my site that does it. I don't think fractals needs to be seen as a whole at once, I'm not sure about you but I'm more conserned with the look of the details than the shape of the finished fractal. As I look at the previews I can say that most flame images of mine can't take being resized to under 800x600, the details and the lines turns to smudge. Ofcourse, some images may have a great and meaningful shape but lacks in the detail department and then posting it small is the smartest move.

lol just have to get the new 30 inch screen[2560x1600pixels] from Apple, and i can see quite a lot more than on the 15 inch one i am using now smile

In Internet Explorer isn't there an option that you can check on that if an image doesnt automatically fit within your screen that it shrinks it to fit? I have my option on and if you want to see the full size image, you mearly hover your mouse over the bottom right hand corner to get a "box" icon that you click. When you click it, the image expands to full size. Definitly keep the file sizes under 250k for the people not on broadband though. tools/internet options/advanced/multimedia/ enable automatic image resizing. I do understand that some people use other browsers and Im not sure if they have the same options available or not.