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

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"James Brook" <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
3A07E169.1AF7BB36@ozemail.com.au">news:3A07E169.1AF7BB36@ozemail.com.au...
> Dave Proctor wrote:
> >
> > And I think you are wrong. If it is purely an image, it should display
> > *fully* in the normal screen size, i.e. 800x600 (although taking a bit
off
> > for browser borders, etc). Choosing to display it higher shows a degree
of
> > arrogance, IMNSHO.
>
> The format of a 35mm frame is different to the format of a screen.

And they are noramlly displayed on different media, which is totally
different to photos on the net, which are displayed on the same media.

> It's like trying to display a widescreen movie on a TV.

As I said above.

> You can either
> display it at its full width and leave a gap at the top and the bottom,
> or you can display it at its correct height and loose a bit on the
> sides. By sizing it to 900x600, it ensures that it can be used as a
> background without losing detail or having a gap at the top and the
> bottom. 900x600 also means that it remains in the 35mm format for other
> uses.

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

> 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"?

> Clearly you are showing a
> degree of ignorance if you think everyone has their desktops set at
> 800x600. Try running a 19in monitor in 800x600 (I have a 17in, but I
> know someone with a 19in).

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.

> You will find that the picture tends to have
> thin black lines through it and the icons look too big. We have huge
> monitors at the RMIT and they are run in 1152x1024. 900x600 looks small
> on these monitors and the 400x300 video captures look like thumbnails.

Not all of us are at that primary school colloquially known as RMIT.

Dave