Best resolution to post pictures at

[ruskinPalms]

Hello All. I have always wondered what is the preferred picture size for the forum. My monitor runs at 1680x1050 so I tend to like the pictures to be on the larger size. Anything less than 1024x768 looks a little small on my monitor; however, too large of images can be just as annoying. Also, do you think we should be using an image hosting service like photobucket or should we be posting directly onto the forum's server so that the pictures aren't lost in the threads if one changes filenames etc on the image hosting service. I am going to post some examples of a picture at different resolutions, some small enough in file size to fit on the forum server and others that go all the way up to the 1 MB filesize limit of photobucket. With a decent image resizer, one can get respectable results for very large photos that fit the 1MB limit of photobucket. However, it is difficult to get good results at higher resolutions when using resizers so that the file size will fit within the 112640 byte limit of this forum server. I personally like to use the image hosting services, I just have to be very strict about not changing any file names or locations on the image hosting service once I have posted to a forum. I selected a rather complex photo since it is more difficult to compress JPEGs with gold results when photos are complex. And pictures of palms and plants tend to be complex at times.

640x480 on the forum server:

[ruskinPalms]

800 x 600 on the forum server:

[ruskinPalms]

1024 x 768 on the forum server:

[ruskinPalms]

1024 x 768 on photobucket with much less compression:

[ruskinPalms]

1280 x 1024 on photobucket:

[ruskinPalms]

1600 x 1200 on photobucket:

[ruskinPalms]

2272 x 1704 on photobucket (the full resolution of my camera):

[ruskinPalms]

A note about the photobucket photos: All are in the area of 950KB in size, so there too as the resolution goes up, so does the amount of compression needed to fit the 1MB limit. Also, it should be noted that I am using only the free services of photobucket available to everyone on the forum. By the way, after looking at these, I like the 1280x1024 the best as it fits best on my monitor without making an annoyingly wide thread (like this one!). However, I think that 1024x768 is the most common resolution used by internet users at this time for their monitor's display resolution. That is likely increase over time as more and more LCD panels are put into use. By the way moderators, I really didn't know where to post this. Feel free to move it to the appropriate forum. I just wanted it to get read so that people can vote.

[bgl]

Very interesting comparison! I've never used photobucket. I reduce the size of all photos I post to 640x480 and then upload directly from my computer, but would certainly like for them to be larger with higher resolution. Of the ones above, my preference is the 1024x768 because that fits on my screen without any scrolling. With the 1280x1024 I actually have to scroll up or down a little bit to see the whole picture (left to right fits because I have a wide screen).

[osideterry]

I make my images 800x600, and can save them for web at medium-high jpeg compression. I make sure they stay under 90k.

I tried PhotoBucket, but the way I manage my files on my laptop, it works better with just pushing them up to the IPS server.

I admit the larger PhotoBucket images look better, but sometimes when others post that way, it's a slow download. Especially the longer travel threads.

[BS Man about Palms]

What Bo said. (preference wise)

By the way, thats the first time I've had to "scroll right" to read the results of my vote!  (ohhh, and to post too!!!)

Bill

[PALM MOD]

I have looked into this question with some detail and found that 1024 x 768 is the largest size that can accommodate the widest range of monitors and screen resolutions without scrolling.

However, this size does not lend itself well when "attaching" a pic (file) due to the limiting factors (100kB) inherent in this software. The 1024 x 768 works very well when using a hosting service, and able to use a file size of 250 kB and larger.

One day soon (I hope) we will have software that will alleviate most of these limitations, and we will be able to upload, store, and display pics easily on our own server.

[Wai`anae Steve]

The problem w/your super wide photo is having to scroll right then left, then right then left to read the words.

Come on guys do you really need the picture that large??

Ok I'll admit I'm still using a 17" monitor.

Do I need to go out and buy a 21" LCD to see the pic and read the post w/out scrolling????????????????

[DoomsDave]

YOW!

1024 by whatever?

THAT'S A LOT!

yike

dave (small)

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

I prefer the smaller images, The first two show a clearer

looking image after that pixels start to show.

Not only that as others notice, never had to scroll to

read and also scroll to add a reply    

Mikey......

[Neofolis]

With the exception of one recent post, I usually post all images at 640 x 480 for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, it's the size I use for the galleries on my website, so I have already resized the images to that size anyway.  Secondly, 640 x 480 fits on my screen in the forum without the need to scroll.  I only have a 17" monitor, but I assume there are not many people, other than laptop users who still use smaller than 17", so 640 X 480, should be easy for most people, although, obviously on high resolution screens, they will look a little small.

[Kris]

My favouriate res.will be 1024x768,no matter from where its loaded..that is direct to server or from photobucket.i always consider that bigger is better.

in smaller images the details are lost.no matter how clear or sharp the image may be.

so always i keep requesting the board & the techenical team to make arrangements for upload facility for upto 115 to 125kb in our palmtalk server it self.since major chunk of clarity lies in this file size !

But i resize my images to 700 X... while uploading for regtangle images and tall images i resize it to 425 x... by doing so the images are preety big and looks great in my CRT Monitor Samsung Syncmaster series its old but the color depth is far natural than the mordern plasma or lcd's which has its own colouration(but many love this unnatural contrast & brilliance).

Thanks & love,

Kris  

[deezpalms]

If I'm posting landscape(rather than portrait) pictures I always resize them to 1024 x 768 in order to get a nice big picture that should fit on most peoples computers.

[Palmarum]

I've always had compliments on posting photos at 1078x768 using Photobucket, so I have stuck to that. On some

monitors they might be large, while others might be small. I think it is a good halfway point. I have not had any problems

with someone not being able to see something in a photo, yet. In most of my photos, the settings are very close, so the

size reduction does not lose much in the way of detail. I know of Forum members who have monitors that range from

15" to 24" in size, so you can not make it look perfect for everyone. I also only use a free account, the max sizes they

offer are more than enough for posting in different forums.

Ryan

[Kathryn]

Since I am viewing this on my laptop at work, I selected 1024 x 768 on the forum server.

It is best to post pictures on the forum server to prevent losing them, but I rarely do

this do to the time involved in shrinking the photos. I just upload to Photobucket and copy

the address. When I am at home, I prefer the larger images on my huge monitor, but

people with average size monitors don’t get the same enjoyment. Maybe in the future I

will resize and use the forum server more often.

[Kathryn]

When posting images, I would prefer to save them on the IPS server, but I’m having trouble with compression.

I use Microsoft Office Picture Manager to view and edit all my pictures. When compressing images, I can’t enter

a specific size, but have the choice of document (300 KB), which is still too large and web page (58 KB), which

will work, but is too small. What software do others use to get them just under the limit?

[Neofolis]

By far the best software is Adobe Photoshop, but it's expensive.  I also use some very good freeware from a company called FastStone.  They have a few image programs, but their Image Viewer and Image Resizer are both very useful and I use them both almost as much as I use Photoshop.  FastStone Image Resizer is particularly useful for doing batch resizing of multiple images.

[ruskinPalms]

I have recently been experimenting with this software. It is freeware. It has a lot of different compression algorhythms (sp?) that allow yout to tinker with photos to get them to fit into the 100KB limit at 1024x768 and not look entirely deplorable:

Easy Thumbnails

I posted some photos of my pritchardia seedlings using this software and they did not turn out too bad.

Here was the thread:

A Pritchardia thread

[ruskinPalms]

By the way, the 1024 x 768 photo that I attached directly to the forum server in this thread was generated with this free software. You can see that there are still limitations with more complex pictures. There is only so much that can be compressed into 100KB.

[Kathryn]

Thanks Bill. The 1024 x 768 on Photobucket looks better than the compressed one on the IPS server, but since I

would like to put pictures on the IPS server instead of using Photobucket, I’ll try this software.