Re: [OT] ideal file size of a jpeg or gif image

[James Brook <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au>]

Dave Proctor wrote:
> 
> And they are noramlly displayed on different media, which is totally
> different to photos on the net, which are displayed on the same media.
> 

But the photos are scanned from a 35mm slide or negative, which means
the ratio should be the same if you want to make it look like the
original photo.

> > It's like trying to display a widescreen movie on a TV.
> 
> As I said above.
> 

And haven't you noticed that some people like movies in the wide screen
letterbox format?

> 
> I wonder about this - the standard is 800x600 (which you conveniently fail
> to address as to why it is the standard) 

You are the one who claims this is the standard desktop size.

> - this adopts a ratio of 4:3 - i.e.
> the height is 4/3 the width - yet you adopt a ratio of 3:2 - it strikes me
> as weird that if I want to use one of your pics as a desktop, I have to
> stretch it somehow (so as to fit into my desktop).
> 

It has to be cropped, not stretched. How can you stretch a 600 pixel
high image to 600 pixels high?!?!?!

> > Another advantage with the 900x600 size is that it can be displayed at a
> > good size on a 1024x768 or higher desktop.
> 
> Sometimes. I have mine higher than 1024x768, but with all the other things I
> have going, sometimes I do not wish to devote my whole screen to one window.
> 
> Again, this is my choice, but since I (and other website owners) design our
> sites so that people who wish to do so can do so with the minimum of fuss,
> we do so in order to reduce fuss. A site which increases fuss is one to be
> avoided, so someone who increases fuss leads me to ask the question "Why
> bother"?
> 

So don't bother, see if I care. There are plenty of people who like my
site. You obviously want everything your way with no compromise
whatsoever.

> 
> I have a 21" which I run at 1024x768 - I have run it at 800x600 when my
> mother is on it (she is a gunzel as well).
> 
> But this gets back to the arrogance I mentioned before - why should everyone
> else have to change their settings just to satisfy your own desires? 800x600
> is the standard, if you want to provide images larger than this, by all
> means do so, but don't make them the ONLY link from the thumbnalis.

Why should I have to provide images specially sized for your needs? Then
I would have to get rid of the high quality images because I would have
less space. You are arrogant if you expect everyone to modify their
images to suit your needs. I am not the only one who likes hi-res
images.

> 
> Not all of us are at that primary school colloquially known as RMIT.
> 
 
Well it is one of the most respected Computer Science courses in
Australia and one of the top two in Melbourne.
 
-- 
- James Brook -

----------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail:     
mailto:ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au
Victorian Railfan Web Site:    
http://www.railpage.org.au/vr/
----------------------------------------------------------------