simple question...maybe
Nicko
Not photos to be used for specific purposes in web pages, but photos to
be posted just to show to people, say, in a personal gallery.
Or, I guess more specifically, what is the most common resolution that
people (not necessarily photographers, just average people) have their
monitors set at?
I'm having a hard time deciding what I should use as a default. I have
been using 96ppi, because that's a compromise between 72ppi (way too
coarse) and 120ppi(files too big?), which is the native resolution of my
19" monitor, but will the larger dimensions of photos annoy people who
are still running monitors at 72ppi on smaller screens? I don't think
that bandwidth is of much of a concern, but correct me if I am wrong
(how many people are actually still using dialup service?).
Cheers!
--
YOP...
Robert Spanjaard
I resize my images to about 500,000 pixels instead of using fixed width
and height limits. That way, extremely tall or wide shots (like
panoramas) don't end up being thumbnails. The quality setting is 85 in
GIMP, which produces images of less than 100 kB on average.
At the moment, the PPI-/DPI-setting isn't very interesting for screen-
presentation. It's the number of pixels that counts. But that may change
in the coming years, like it did for font sizes in the last couple of
years.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Paul Furman
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:19:15 -0500, Nicko wrote:
>
>> At what resolution do you save photos that you show people on the web?
>> Not photos to be used for specific purposes in web pages, but photos to
>> be posted just to show to people, say, in a personal gallery.
>>
>> Or, I guess more specifically, what is the most common resolution that
>> people (not necessarily photographers, just average people) have their
>> monitors set at?
>>
>> I'm having a hard time deciding what I should use as a default. I have
>> been using 96ppi, because that's a compromise between 72ppi (way too
>> coarse) and 120ppi(files too big?), which is the native resolution of my
>> 19" monitor, but will the larger dimensions of photos annoy people who
>> are still running monitors at 72ppi on smaller screens?
You need to ask the question in pixels, ppi doesn't really mean anything
on a monitor. Or add inches.
I do 640 pixels in the long dimension, that leaves plenty of room for
menus & people who choose not to maximize their browser, etc. That's a
little bigger than for informational web pages, non-photo web pages. For
my informational pages, I resize to 440 max and that's actually photo
galleries.
1024 is common. I do 1200 for flickr, which you have to click through to
see every time. Flickr downsizes them to 500 pixel previews, close to my
640 above. It's also possible to view full screen slide shows of the big
ones so 1200 is probably the most anyone would be able to appreciate in
one screen full. HD video is 1920x1080m a computer monitor that fits in
is probably 1920x1200, so if it's a portrait shot, that still fits.
>> I don't think
>> that bandwidth is of much of a concern, but correct me if I am wrong
>> (how many people are actually still using dialup service?).
>
> I resize my images to about 500,000 pixels instead of using fixed width
> and height limits. That way, extremely tall or wide shots (like
> panoramas) don't end up being thumbnails. The quality setting is 85 in
> GIMP, which produces images of less than 100 kB on average.
Neat feature.
> At the moment, the PPI-/DPI-setting isn't very interesting for screen-
> presentation. It's the number of pixels that counts. But that may change
> in the coming years, like it did for font sizes in the last couple of
> years.
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Robert Spanjaard
>> I resize my images to about 500,000 pixels instead of using fixed width
>> and height limits. That way, extremely tall or wide shots (like
>> panoramas) don't end up being thumbnails. The quality setting is 85 in
>> GIMP, which produces images of less than 100 kB on average.
>
> Neat feature.
It's not a feature of GIMP, BTW. I created a simple spreadsheet to do the
hard work. Now I just enter the source width and height, and the desired
number of pixels, and the sheet gives me the target width and height.
The spreadsheet is online in OpenOffice ods-format:
http://www.arumes.com/temp/photoresizer.ods
ray
Web galleries, posting to forums, etc. I usually do 800x600 - most folks
can accomodate that and virtually everyone without a bunch of scrolling.
J�rgen Exner
>At what resolution do you save photos that you show people on the web?
>I'm having a hard time deciding what I should use as a default. I have
>been using 96ppi, because that's a compromise between 72ppi (way too
>coarse) and 120ppi(files too big?), which is the native resolution of my
>19" monitor, but will the larger dimensions of photos annoy people who
>are still running monitors at 72ppi on smaller screens?
Wrong question to ask. DPI/PPI is totally irrelevant for photos (unless
scanned) until they are displayed on a physical device like a monitor or
paper.
Rather think in size, expressed in pixel X pixel.
600X800 is a common size for web pages. It is old, and I don't think
there are still many people using monitors that small, but it has become
kind of a smallest common denominator.
For standard use when I don't expect people to zoom in or to print
photos 1024x768 is a nice compromise between load time and level of
detail.
I use larger sizes only for special purposes, like giving someone access
for printing or zooming in on details.
>that bandwidth is of much of a concern, but correct me if I am wrong
>(how many people are actually still using dialup service?).
That depends. Finland for example made a large effort a few years ago to
get every citizen high-speed internet access while I just read yesterday
that Kenia is getting its first high-speed access this week.
Anyway, even with DSL I don't like to wait for a web page to load.
Either it is there within 10-15 seconds or I'm gone someplace else.
Research has shown that on avergage 5-8 seconds is the maximum load time
people are willing to tolerate. Longer than that and they become
frustrated.
jue
Nicko
Thanks for the advice, people. I *think* I have figgered this out. In
any case, the general agreement about using pixels as the unit of
measurement seems like solid advice.
And in my experience I agree with you, J�rgen, about load time.
Cheers!
--
YOP...
Frank ess
That's a pretty useful answer, concise and to the OP's point.
My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about screen
resolution used by all visitors to sites measured by that service over
425 days ending 31 March 2009:
Fri Feb 1 00:01:02 2008 - Tue Mar 31 23:58:00 2009 425.0 Days
1024x768 27 290 629 (44%)
1280x1024 19 687 161 (31%)
Unknown 7 979 641 (12%)
800x600 4 375 444 (7%)
1152x864 2 026 010 (3%)
1600x1200 398 074 (0%)
640x480 108 717 (0%)
Subject to all statistic-gathering shortcomings, it looks as if you'll
only take the chance of offending 20% of visitors - 7% known - by
going larger than 800x600.
I make my Web pages 792 wide, to accommodate borders in browsers, and
if I want to fill the page edge-to-edge with an image, I make it 760
wide. That's large enough to view the quality of images I put on the
site, and small enough to allow a little fudging without requiring
horizontal scroll.
My eyes and monitors don't show me any improvement in Web-destined
JPEG images as a result of saving at anything higher than about 60 (of
a hundred) quality in Photo Shop; I don't see any significant
decrement saving as low as 30 on the same scale. That means quick
loads for "just showing", and not that much longer for "as good as is
worthwhile".
Of course all that was developed pre-wideband. Nowadays I set almost
any image worth showing on the Web at 1024 long dimension, and use the
60-quality save. If that isn't good enough, it's not likely the onus
is on me to make adjustments.
Nicko
That was almost exactly the information I was seeking. Thank you, so
much, Frank, and everyone else.
--
YOP...
John Navas
in <h1s29m$emq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>Frank ess wrote:
>> My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about screen
>> resolution used by all visitors to sites measured by that service over
>> 425 days ending 31 March 2009:
>>
>> Fri Feb 1 00:01:02 2008 - Tue Mar 31 23:58:00 2009 425.0 Days
>>
>> 1024x768 27 290 629 (44%)
>> 1280x1024 19 687 161 (31%)
>> Unknown 7 979 641 (12%)
>> 800x600 4 375 444 (7%)
>> 1152x864 2 026 010 (3%)
>> 1600x1200 398 074 (0%)
>> 640x480 108 717 (0%)
>>
>> Subject to all statistic-gathering shortcomings,
Especially in this case -- I have no idea where you're getting that
data, but it's wildly inconsistent with the data I've seen, which shows
that smaller images dominate. Try a Google Image search.
>That was almost exactly the information I was seeking. Thank you, so
>much, Frank, and everyone else.
As President Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify!"
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Paul Furman
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:16:32 -0500, Nicko <nervou...@gmail.com> wrote
> in <h1s29m$emq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> Frank ess wrote:
>
>>> My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about screen
>>> resolution used by all visitors to sites measured by that service over
>>> 425 days ending 31 March 2009:
>>>
>>> Fri Feb 1 00:01:02 2008 - Tue Mar 31 23:58:00 2009 425.0 Days
>>>
>>> 1024x768 27 290 629 (44%)
>>> 1280x1024 19 687 161 (31%)
>>> Unknown 7 979 641 (12%)
>>> 800x600 4 375 444 (7%)
>>> 1152x864 2 026 010 (3%)
>>> 1600x1200 398 074 (0%)
>>> 640x480 108 717 (0%)
>>>
>>> Subject to all statistic-gathering shortcomings,
>
> Especially in this case -- I have no idea where you're getting that
> data, but it's wildly inconsistent with the data I've seen, which shows
> that smaller images dominate. Try a Google Image search.
Screen size, not image size.
Here's a javascript web page that resizes your browser window to various
sizes:
http://edgehill.net/1/Misc/html-coding/screen-scale/index.htm
Firefox blocked it, I used IE. It doesn't account for scroll bars or
anything, so should be shrunk manually for that.
>> That was almost exactly the information I was seeking. Thank you, so
>> much, Frank, and everyone else.
>
> As President Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify!"
>
--
Neil Ellwood
image/scale image could give you a clue. Has been in the gimp for years.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
Robert Spanjaard
>>>> I resize my images to about 500,000 pixels instead of using fixed
>>>> width and height limits. That way, extremely tall or wide shots (like
>>>> panoramas) don't end up being thumbnails. The quality setting is 85
>>>> in GIMP, which produces images of less than 100 kB on average.
>>>
>>> Neat feature.
>>
>> It's not a feature of GIMP, BTW. I created a simple spreadsheet to do
>> the hard work. Now I just enter the source width and height, and the
>> desired number of pixels, and the sheet gives me the target width and
>> height.
>>
>> The spreadsheet is online in OpenOffice ods-format:
>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/photoresizer.ods
>
> image/scale image could give you a clue. Has been in the gimp for years.
Image -> Scale Image has been in GIMP for years, that's true. But it
doesn't tell you what dimensions to use to get a certain number of
pixels, so that's what I made a spreadsheet for.
Now, where was that clue you were talking about?
Frank ess
The resizer worked OK in my probably-less-secure Firefox.
Speaking of blocking, I think John was:
"My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about screen
resolution ... " gives some idea of where I got the report, and
TheCounter.com gathered the data. We don't know if their customers'
viewers are typical, but with those sample sizes it's likely the
percentages are at least in the ballpark.
--
Frank ess
John Navas
wrote in <h1sb0j$mdm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:16:32 -0500, Nicko <nervou...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <h1s29m$emq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> Frank ess wrote:
>>
>>>> My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about screen
>>>> resolution used by all visitors to sites measured by that service over
>>>> 425 days ending 31 March 2009:
>>>>
>>>> Fri Feb 1 00:01:02 2008 - Tue Mar 31 23:58:00 2009 425.0 Days
>>>>
>>>> 1024x768 27 290 629 (44%)
>>>> 1280x1024 19 687 161 (31%)
>>>> Unknown 7 979 641 (12%)
>>>> 800x600 4 375 444 (7%)
>>>> 1152x864 2 026 010 (3%)
>>>> 1600x1200 398 074 (0%)
>>>> 640x480 108 717 (0%)
>>>>
>>>> Subject to all statistic-gathering shortcomings,
>>
>> Especially in this case -- I have no idea where you're getting that
>> data, but it's wildly inconsistent with the data I've seen, which shows
>> that smaller images dominate. Try a Google Image search.
>
>Screen size, not image size.
Oops, sorry, I missed that.
While designing for at least 1024x768 screen size is common, it's
another thing entirely to assume everyone is willing to maximize their
browsers to suit your website. I personally do *not* have my browser
maximized, preferring to see and be able to navigate overlapped windows,
and I'll often leave a website that requires me to maximize my browser
just to navigate the website.
In addition, a growing and increasingly important segment of the market
is mobile devices with lower screen resolutions, along with lower
resolution netbooks.
This is why most websites I personally design can be viewed successfully
all the way down to a browser maximized at 800x600, 640x480, or even
less.
ray
Interesting that you had 'issues' with ff - it worked fine for me with
epiphany on Gentoo linux - I believe they use the same rendering engine,
at least.
Ofnuts
> Image -> Scale Image has been in GIMP for years, that's true. But it
> doesn't tell you what dimensions to use to get a certain number of
> pixels, so that's what I made a spreadsheet for.
>
> Now, where was that clue you were talking about?
In the "size" part or the "Scale image" dialog you can use
inches/millimeters as units, and in the "Resolution" part you can set
how many pixels/inch (or per mm) you want in the final print and it will
compute the new size in pixels...
--
Bertrand
Robert Spanjaard
You guys are incredible. I'd suggest you just start reading this thread
from the beginning. If you still don't get it, read it _again_.
Ofnuts
Something that worries me with your figures is that these are all 4/3
screens while the 16/10 and 16/9 ones abound especially on laptops...
are they included in the "unknown"?
--
Bertrand
Frank ess
That's the only reasonable conclusion I can see. Doesn't allow for my
1680x1050, otherwise.
--
Frank ess
John Turco
Hello, Nicko:
I'm a dial-up slug, and my Sceptre 24" LCD monitor (model X24WG) is
always running at its native resolution of 1920x1200 pixels.
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Tzorzakakis Dimitrios
? "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:4A445D21...@concentric.net...
I have a 2mbps DSL, my 20" Samsung is @1680X1050 which is its native
resolution. (Widescreen 16:10 or whatever).{Syncmaster 206BW}.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitris
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Bob Larter
Dual 1600x1200 screens here. (One LCD, one CRT)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Here's a javascript web page that resizes your browser window to various
>> sizes:
>> http://edgehill.net/1/Misc/html-coding/screen-scale/index.htm Firefox
>> blocked it, I used IE. It doesn't account for scroll bars or anything,
>> so should be shrunk manually for that.
>
> Interesting that you had 'issues' with ff - it worked fine for me with
> epiphany on Gentoo linux - I believe they use the same rendering engine,
> at least.
I'm happy it blocks that. Nothing I hate more than a web site resizing
my freaking window! I never fiddled with the settings, this is the
latest version.
John Turco
Hello, Tzorzakakis:
Forgot to add that, my Sceptre X24WG is 16:9 (wide screen).
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>