This is for all artists out there. When you post images to the gallery, please keep in mind that not everyone has a 21" monitor and screen resolution of 1600 x 1200. Actually, I reckon 1024 x 768 is still the most common resolution, so you might want to take that into account. Every day when I surf in the galleries I see images with resolutions like 1295 x 1500 1470 x 1500 1465 x 1600 1500 x 1420... etc. For most of us it's impossible to properly view images like that and I'd imagine many of us would like to view the images without having to scroll a lot - I know I would. My screen resolution is 1280 x 1024 and I don't consider it small at all... and yet it's often not enough :/

Thank you, Eowyn, I totally agree. That's one of the main reason why I seldom ever visit the galleries. It's too much work to view the images. If you can't see them in one piece, it loses something. It think people get carried away, thinking bigger is better, or they're hoping to eventually print it as a poster. One suggestion I can think of, to those who like big images, is to go ahead and render it large, but when you post to the galleries, please post a smaller version that will fit into the view window all in one piece, or with a minimum of scrolling. Melanie

Eowyn, An unrelated comment. You might want to consider a screen rez of 1280 x 960. You current rez is not proportional. In other words, at those values, a square will NOT be square. The correct screen proportions are 800/600, 1024/768, 1280/960, etc. There was a thread about it in this forum a couple of months ago, (just as I had bought a new monitor), so I picked it all up from there. Unfortunately, I can't find the link. mac

Now I believe an artist should be able to share what thier mind's eye sees. With that said. I run a resolution of 1280x1024 and I normaly connect on a dial up. so when I look at an image I personally would like not to have to scroll around to see it. It detracts from the vision and I no longer can see what you see since my presentation prespective will be smaller. so i would suggest. making smaller. There is another reason i suggest this,Copyright. Yes copyright. a smaller image does reduce the quality a bit, very true. but if you have the larger original and post a smaller copy, it is far easier to prove the work as yours. and is less likey to be taken and altered and posted as someone else's work. since their modifications will show more clearly when they resave it. Meaning the image grows a little muddier with a crisp new sig on it. Too often I look at a huge image and think, man they are begging it be stolen since they are in effect giving away and high res image that is easier to alter with quality, and thus harder to prove it's real owner. Now some will projectile vomit because of my suggestion, since I am in a sence suggesting they lower thier quality. however it is just a thought and something to think on.

maclean - 1280x960 is what you usually use on CRTs, but if Eowyn has a 17" LCD with 1280x1024 native resolution, that is the proportional resolution.

Ah yes.... that could be it. I sometimes forget other people have that stuff called 'money'. LOL. mac

LOL that's all hebrew to me.. HAHA.. I had a look at the settings but I can't see any way to change only one of the values. If I try to lower the resolution, it'll automatically jump from 1280 x 1024 to 1024 x 768. shrug

i agree..... I can't fully appreciate an image when i have to scroll a long way vertically and horizontally.. It spoils it for me and i don't view them... my screen is at 1024x728.. I personally upload images that will fit so people can see the whole image and so i don't fill up Renderosity's server with countless vast images. I would suggest if you think ur image has to be seen in such a big scale then, do a smaller one and provide a link to somewhere people can if they choose see a full scale one.

People who post those huge images may not realize the importance of composition in an image--even the Old Masters' paintings look chaotic and unfocused when the eye can't take in the entire image at once. The overall composition is where much of the beauty (or otherwise) of a picture lies. Look at just a chunk of even a Vermeer and, despite the beauty of each individual texture, the overall impact of the painting is lost.

Thanks Mac and Stewer - I was wondering aout the differences between CRTs and LCDs. This is due to the screen pixel shape, right? Best; Dan

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1151100

Eowyn, Here's the link to the relevant thread. From Post #20 onwards. Here's what Fishnose has to say on the subject. 'never use 1280x1024 if you can possibly avoid it. Use 1280x960 instead to get the right ratio. 1280x1024 makes everything look short and fat. It's 5:4, whereas a computer screen is made to look right at 4:3' and again 'Simple test - at 1024x768, create a basic block image onscreen, exactly square. Measure it with a ruler on the screen, make sure it is square. Then reset the graphics card to show 1280x1024 and measure the square. It will of course be a slightly different size (smaller), but NOT square' If you can't get intermediate settings, it may be due to limitations on your video card. But it's worth reading the thread to get the right info because your sqaure art may not be square on other people's monitors. mac

One "yes" vote from me on keeping them 800X600 to save server space and speed things up. Post a link to the original giant-size image for surfers with 30-inch monitors and T3 connections.

Thanks for the link, maclean :) I'll have a look :) And yes, images around 800x600 would be ideal, methinks.

Scrolling never bothers me, but on dial-up - I seldom look at anything over 200KB - it just takes too long to load - and there are so many images to browse these days. :-)

On the othyer hand... not everybody has a low res monitor display either... I'm using 16001200 res and I can't see any details on those tiny little 750500 pictures :D

I think a max dimension of 800 or thereabouts is both common sense and common courtesy.

I actually have a 21" at work, and I still have it set for 1024x768..bein' the old fart I am, my eyes have trouble at higher resolutions. At home, I have a 17", which is why renders done there are usually 800x600..so I guess it's personal preference..I like 800x600 and up as a picture size..I've seen so many folks use 540x405 (bryce), or even 400x400 or so (Poser), I dont' mind the scrolling bit..just put the 'focus' of your picture somewhere near the center, and it's all good..;)

I don't understand the whole issue of the image size. Under the thumnail in gallery, it tells you the size of the image you are going to view. If the images over 1,000 pixels are too much for your monitor or your "scrolling finger" then simply DO NOT VIEW IT!! Another thing, if the image is to your liking you could always save it, then preview it with the Windows Picture/Fax Viewer ( I bet Mac has something similar to it.)and it will show you the adapted size to your monitor resolution. I personally appreicate the good images that are presented in higher image size so that I could take my time to analyze every little details!! Don't we have better thing to do than BITCHING about the image sizes?! I got something to BITCH about....Like too many naked V1,V2,& V3 without any background going on in the image. How's boring nothing new or unique?! I bet many artists are laughing at the Poser gallery for having way too many weak images without any statement or sense of purpose mostly presenting CHEAP THRILLS!!

anstacia, thank you for your calm and rational post :P I was not bitching about the image size, I was simply requesting that people take others into account when they post images - after all we post the images for OTHERS to see, not ourselves, right? The images simply look better when you can see the whole image without scrolling, IMHO. But since you obviously can't see the point, I might as well stop explaining :) Have a good day.

I agree with Eowyn- what's the point in making a 2500x2000 image if people will either have to scroll to see it or reduce it down to see the entire image? The "artist" spends all that time rendering a huge image so people can only see a small chunk of it at one time. I once e-mailed an artist about why he made his image so big and his response was that he could... since Renderosity allows big images, why not make them? And for the poster who suggested saving the image and viewing it in Windows Picture & Fax Viewer: think about what you're doing. You are taking a 2500x2000 image and having the program display it "fit to screen" size... which makes it only 600 (or 768) pixels tall. So, then, we're back to the original argument: why should the "artist" make such a huge image when people are going to resize it anyway? And should we get into the argument about why "artists" post images that are 400k, 500k, or more? Don't they know how to compress the image? (And they wonder why their images don't get any views.) ---- I use the word "artist" in quotes because real artists should know the best size for their image, based on the medium that they are using. Making a huge image? Use a billboard or the side of a building. Making an image for the web? No larger than 1024x768 pixels and no larger than 200k.

Hi Anyone catch the similar thread over on the Bryce forum. over there they seem to think big is beautiful! It did get me thinking though if you are taking an image out of someones gallery and 'messing' with it i.e. altering sizes resolutions etc doesn't copyright enter into this somewhere, I mean techically a colour photocopy is an infingement so does this apply? Dave (whos spelling is really bad tonight !)

While I use 1280 x 960 on my 19" monitor, I figure many, if not most people are still running 1024 x 768. I don't really care about people using 800 x 600 (or lower) anymore though, I figure if they can't can't run higher than that on their system they probably don't really care about computer graphics, anyway. ;-) The other side of the coin is, however, the 90 x 70 thumbnails at DAZ and Poserpros (and other places) look a little small these days- and they seemed fine when we were running 640 x 480!

i hate scrolling and spending long time to load an image (56k modem here), but well, i also know that sometimes u just dont want to lose any detail making the image smaller.. :)

My Poser Workspace is set to 800x600, so when I make a render without rendering to a new window, that is the size it has. However I usually renders larger, something like 1500x1200 (I think) and then resize it to either 1280x1024 or 1024x768. My monitor is running 1280x1024 and I like to be able to use them as wallpapers without getting pixels all over. Actually this is also what I do when I see a REALLY stunning image, I set it as wallpaper, and as I allways try to keep my desktop tidy with only the icons that HAS to be there, I can then watch the complete image with allmost no disturbing elements. Ah and sometimes I forget to resize the images before uploading.... :o}

'I allways try to keep my desktop tidy with only the icons that HAS to be there' This is my desktop. You don't get tidier than that. LOL. CD player, system, trashcan, photoshop, poser and max icons. And the only ones I ever use are the system and trashcan. I open every program with ctrl-alt-whatever. mac

Ha! Mine used to look like that, but when I used to use a Mac I sorta got in the habit of... Plus when you get old there is always the problem of "Where did I put that?" I do have less things on the taskbar, though! ;-)

I've always been a Mac user... and my desktop has always been pretty clean. :D

OT, but how the heck are you guys getting these beautiful screenshots on your Macs? Inquiring minds want to know ;)

OK though I'd better show mine too. This is the one at work. The one at home looks more or less like it, at least most of the time *G*

Hi Patricia. I use the Grab application that comes with OSX. :) You can see the Grab menu at the top of my screenshot. :)

Gee, memory starts to fade (getting close to a year since I used a Mac), but wasn't it Apple-Option-3 for a screenshot?

The grab application gives you more opions. :) Screenshot with the mouse, screenshot without, make your own square, choose your own area, etc.

Well, I'll be darned! Never knew that was there, lurking in Utilities. Thank you :)