Quote:
Originally posted by charlene:
The long link posted by John is why the page is wider...this was one thing Florian was trying
to work on with the new site I believe...
Char
|
Oops
Actually I do not think it has anything to do with long links as the format as far as I can tell automatically breaks up long links into shorter pieces to keep within the width that the
brower has adjusted to to display the largest object on the page in this topic's case that is my first displayed picture. Sorry folks.
For myself viewing at 800 pixels wide this topic's width is compromised by my two pictures, both of which I had already resized: the upper one of the Royal Albert Hall is actually only 750 pixels wide and the lower one only 700. so Valerie' theoretical 800 to suit lower resolution monitors seems a tad optimistic.
I had indeed carried out some experiments earler at:-
http://www.corfid.com/ubb/ultimatebb...=000153#000000
on acceptable picture maximum sizes in order to furnish information to insert in tutorials
on both displaying pictures here and resizing them if necessary or at the very least using a
thumbnail as a link.
My tests indicated that at a monitor resolution of 1024 a picture resized to 640 pixel width was
looking rather small but it pretty well filled the width at a resolution of 800.
Interestingly whilst drafting this reply I realised that my monitor was probably set at 800, and a quick check (right click anywhere on your desktop then select "properties" then "settings" to find a slider for adjusting your monitor's resolution if it is possible that is). and sure enough it was.
I quickly realised that the reason for this was that I was temporarily using a new Hard Drive on
which I had newly installed Windows XP Home Edition and obviously the default seting is 800 by 600 so I have now reset it to 1024 by 768.It is therefore possible that Ron's Mozilla
Firefox came on at only 800 but his Internet Exploder setting was a reset 1024.
Anyway the picture size is therefore as important as the actual file size as I think that in round numbers any picture file
one may wish to display should be a maximum of say 100 Kilobytes else those of us like me with dial up connections will be grumbling.Plus as eviednced here a pixel width of 640 mxaximum should please all viewers (except those looking at palm sized devices of course)
If to show some fine detail you wish to let your aiudience see a larger version then you will have to upload it to for example
http://www.imageshack.us which will create a thumbnail for you then give you a choice of UBB codes to display the thumbnail as a clickable link to your full sized version.Then test it it or at least preview to check that you get your intended result.
It is also worth pointing out that if you try to find a picture using Google Image Search the results very conveniently show not only the full sized picture size in pixels but also the file size in KB
So yes thank you Ron for bringing this matter up
John
P.S. If you are contemplating displaying a picture and are not sure how it will appear, try at the preview stage viewing the
result in both 800 and 1024 widths.
Finally anybody having a "megapixel" digital camera must realize that at the larger settings
the files become quite large and must be resized before being of any use here, fortunately there are several nice freeware program(me)s out there
Aslo,image shack has a fairly small maxinmum file upload size
allowed: jpg jpeg png gif bmp tif tiff swf < 1.5 megabytes.
and in addition I just realised has a checkable box to resize your image to various preset sizes including 640x480: for message boards
As they say "Bingo"!!!