I tend to think 600 pixels is about the maximum width for photos to be displayed properly on current monitors/TV's. Anything wider tends to mess up webpage format and requires the viewer to scroll back and forth to view the picture and read text that's unfortunate enough to be on the same page.
Agree? Disagree?
Resolution: how much is too much?
Moderators: David, Iowaboo, Thuja
- Roy
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location info: 6
- Location: Tampa, Florida, USA,............Florida's SunCoast <Zone 9B-10A>
Re: Resolution: how much is too much?
What I try to do is to fit the image on my monitor where I do not have to scroll back and forth. For me, that's 11.1 inches wide.Thuja wrote:I tend to think 600 pixels is about the maximum width for photos to be displayed properly on current monitors/TV's. Anything wider tends to mess up webpage format and requires the viewer to scroll back and forth to view the picture and read text that's unfortunate enough to be on the same page.
Agree? Disagree?
--------------------------
Roy Rogers
Southern Tampania de la Floridana Universidad (STFU)
STFU Motto: All Bamboos are not Created Equal; @ STFU, the Search Continues
**********
ROY'S BAMBOO LIST
Roy Rogers
Southern Tampania de la Floridana Universidad (STFU)
STFU Motto: All Bamboos are not Created Equal; @ STFU, the Search Continues
**********
ROY'S BAMBOO LIST
- rfgpitt
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:28 am
- Location info: 24
- Location: Zone 6a - SW of Pittsburgh - 15317
RE: Resolution: how much is too much?
I would probably agree. If more detail or zooming is needed then it can be cropped. Now, probably not by choice, there are still people who are using dial-up.
Rick
-
- Posts: 959
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:34 pm
- Location info: 0
- Location: Wisconsin, USA zone 4b;
1951: -37*F;
1996: -29*F;
2005: -10*F;
2006: -17*F;
2007: -17*F.
RE: Resolution: how much is too much?
Ditto on the cropping. It also helps the viewer see what detail you are attempting to show.
IMO, oftentimes giant, high resolution photos are uploaded in an attempt to make a weak photos appear better. Either that or it's a way of showing off that new 10Mpix (or more) camera.
IMO, oftentimes giant, high resolution photos are uploaded in an attempt to make a weak photos appear better. Either that or it's a way of showing off that new 10Mpix (or more) camera.
--Mike
- Roy
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location info: 6
- Location: Tampa, Florida, USA,............Florida's SunCoast <Zone 9B-10A>
Re: RE: Resolution: how much is too much?
That's my next step up. When my 5M pix gives out, then 10M pix is next. My 5M pix cost me what a 10M pix cost now.Thuja wrote:...snip....showing off that new 10Mpix (or more) camera.
--------------------------
Roy Rogers
Southern Tampania de la Floridana Universidad (STFU)
STFU Motto: All Bamboos are not Created Equal; @ STFU, the Search Continues
**********
ROY'S BAMBOO LIST
Roy Rogers
Southern Tampania de la Floridana Universidad (STFU)
STFU Motto: All Bamboos are not Created Equal; @ STFU, the Search Continues
**********
ROY'S BAMBOO LIST
-
- Posts: 959
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:34 pm
- Location info: 0
- Location: Wisconsin, USA zone 4b;
1951: -37*F;
1996: -29*F;
2005: -10*F;
2006: -17*F;
2007: -17*F.
RE: Resolution: how much is too much?
10Mpix. Me too! And I'll be sure to upload a billboard-sized photo as soon as I can.
--Mike
- Roy
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location info: 6
- Location: Tampa, Florida, USA,............Florida's SunCoast <Zone 9B-10A>
Re: RE: Resolution: how much is too much?
Well, that's not really my goal for a high megapixal camera. What I do is take big nice image, then I go in and cut out the detail that I want to use. Then I save the image in high resolution, in case I want to print it later, then I save an image in low resolution to upload at Bambooweb.info. There's not a gnat's a.. difference in what I can see on my monitor (PC or Mac) between the high resolution and low resolution. Printing and cropping of images, then the higher resolution does make a difference. My monitors I buy usually run in the $500 to $700 dollars range, not the $3000 to $5000 range.Thuja wrote:10Mpix. Me too! And I'll be sure to upload a billboard-sized photo as soon as I can.
--------------------------
Roy Rogers
Southern Tampania de la Floridana Universidad (STFU)
STFU Motto: All Bamboos are not Created Equal; @ STFU, the Search Continues
**********
ROY'S BAMBOO LIST
Roy Rogers
Southern Tampania de la Floridana Universidad (STFU)
STFU Motto: All Bamboos are not Created Equal; @ STFU, the Search Continues
**********
ROY'S BAMBOO LIST
-
- Posts: 959
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:34 pm
- Location info: 0
- Location: Wisconsin, USA zone 4b;
1951: -37*F;
1996: -29*F;
2005: -10*F;
2006: -17*F;
2007: -17*F.
RE: Resolution: how much is too much?
Ya, I'm kidding. Forgot to wink. Yep, I too save the big files for editing and printing.
The giant plasma screens don't currently display any higher resolution than the smaller computer monitors. In fact they usually display LESS.
The giant plasma screens don't currently display any higher resolution than the smaller computer monitors. In fact they usually display LESS.
--Mike
RE: Resolution: how much is too much?
With black bars running on the sides of my dying monitor, most images have a squished appearance. So quality isn't all that important, as long as I can tell it is bamboo from corn plant.
-
- Posts: 959
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:34 pm
- Location info: 0
- Location: Wisconsin, USA zone 4b;
1951: -37*F;
1996: -29*F;
2005: -10*F;
2006: -17*F;
2007: -17*F.
RE: Resolution: how much is too much?
What resolution setting are most people using today? Mine is set at 1280x1024 pixels. (If you're using Windows you can find your settings in Control Panel | Appearance | Display | Settings.)
Here's an image that's 72 pixels high.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/ ... p72x72.jpg" border="0" alt="72 x 72 pixels">
When I measure this photo on my screen it's about 0.75 inches high. If I switch my display settings lower, then the same picture will appear larger on screen. E.g., at 800x600 resolution the image appears 1.25" inches high. My monitor is 10.6" high. Using the 600 pixel height setting, 600p/10.6" = 57ppi (pixels per inch), while @ the 1024 setting, 1024p/10.6" = 97p/i.
So what? Well, this means that it doesn't make sense to say Windows displays 96ppi and Mac 72ppi. What really matters is what monitor you're using, what display adapter, and what display settings you have set in your operating system.
Here's an image that's 72 pixels high.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/ ... p72x72.jpg" border="0" alt="72 x 72 pixels">
When I measure this photo on my screen it's about 0.75 inches high. If I switch my display settings lower, then the same picture will appear larger on screen. E.g., at 800x600 resolution the image appears 1.25" inches high. My monitor is 10.6" high. Using the 600 pixel height setting, 600p/10.6" = 57ppi (pixels per inch), while @ the 1024 setting, 1024p/10.6" = 97p/i.
So what? Well, this means that it doesn't make sense to say Windows displays 96ppi and Mac 72ppi. What really matters is what monitor you're using, what display adapter, and what display settings you have set in your operating system.
--Mike
RE: Resolution: how much is too much?
Most monitors and display cards have been AT LEAST 1024 x 768 for several years already.
Even most portables have 14" screens for the last couple years, while most recen desktop displays are 17" or 19".
640 x 480 (aka Super VGA) as a max image size seems so mid 1990s, ie, just fine ... 10 years ago.
Part of the fun of photography is developing the habit and skill to frame a shot effeciently, noting the direction the light is coming from, adjusting focal lenght to have a flat or deep image, shallow or deep depth of field, sharp focus.
Sloppily shooting and storing 8 Mbit images in camera storage seems extremely wasteful of a precious resource. Then you have to transfer to and store on PC. For those of us who shoot 100s of pics per months, shooting 8 MBit raw images so we can clip out some interesting sub-image is just not practical. I shoot my images at 1280 x 960 (a puny 1.2 Mpixels, which is only half of my old camera's max pixels), for my 1400 pixel wide Thinkpad. I don't feel at all constrained, nor the need to go to a 10 Mpixel camera.
Even most portables have 14" screens for the last couple years, while most recen desktop displays are 17" or 19".
640 x 480 (aka Super VGA) as a max image size seems so mid 1990s, ie, just fine ... 10 years ago.
Part of the fun of photography is developing the habit and skill to frame a shot effeciently, noting the direction the light is coming from, adjusting focal lenght to have a flat or deep image, shallow or deep depth of field, sharp focus.
Sloppily shooting and storing 8 Mbit images in camera storage seems extremely wasteful of a precious resource. Then you have to transfer to and store on PC. For those of us who shoot 100s of pics per months, shooting 8 MBit raw images so we can clip out some interesting sub-image is just not practical. I shoot my images at 1280 x 960 (a puny 1.2 Mpixels, which is only half of my old camera's max pixels), for my 1400 pixel wide Thinkpad. I don't feel at all constrained, nor the need to go to a 10 Mpixel camera.