Maximum Picture Widths in Forums

Lee · 4th December 2004, 02:59 AM

The picture above shows common possible picture widths.
Most likely the whole picture is too wide for your screen,
and a slider bar has appeared on the bottom of your screen
to allow you to pan the picture.

This software is superior to our old software in that a
big picture only appears to 'break the box' it is in, rather
than stretching the text in the whole thread.

Lee · 4th December 2004, 03:08 AM

If your computer is not over a decade old, there is a good chance that you can increase your screen resolution. In Windows, right click on a part of your screen with no icons or toolbars. This will bring up a menu from which you should choose 'properties'. Now choose the 'settings' tab on the right at the top of the box which opens. See the slider for screen area? Move it slightly to the right for higher resolutions that will fit larger pictures on your screen. If you are at 640 by 480, try 800 by 600, from 800 by 600, try 1024 by 768. Further options are 1152 by 864 and 1280 by 1024. Most people never move this setting from how it came and miss much of what they paid for as far as their video card goes...

Rick · 4th December 2004, 03:30 AM

Still have a 200 kb size limit , Lee ?

Lee · 4th December 2004, 04:34 AM

In setting the limit, I looked back at the hundreds of pictures I have posted in the old forum for the membership from 2002 to present. None of these exceeded 200 kb, though a few got close. The average size was 48 kb. The default limit was 20 kb. I fear that if I clear the 200 kb ceiling, it would not take more than a few potential oblivious and prolific members with multimegapixel cameras running on super high quality and directly uploading on broadband connections to massively expand disk space utilization and bandwidth consumption. The increase in quality perceivable to the average member would be neglible - indeed what they would notice would be significantly longer page load times - and the ultimate end result would probably come to the hard decision of taking earlier material off line and, as a practical matter, doing so indiscriminately except by date.

I have made the offer to members without photo editing software that they may e-mail pictures to me for optimal jpeg compression with return of adequate quality manageable sized files for posting to them by return e-mail and this offer stands.

Those members potentially wanting to post 1 mb images are more than welcome to host these images on their own webspace and to use the image tags.

Lee · 4th December 2004, 04:41 AM

All of that being said, the purpose of the above poll is to determine if the maximum width of pictures can be increased, both for uploads and for the static pages on the website. I suspect the 200 kb limit would still provide adequate headroom even if we were to go to the 1024 width

Andrew · 4th December 2004, 06:39 AM

Lee, I have an off-topic, but related question.

Can you explain why it is that when I reduce the size of my photos (taken with a 4mp camera set at about 2288x1712 or 806kb) the quality degrades?

I'm using a simple photo editing program to simply decrease pixels. Will compression make a difference?

Naga Basuki · 10th December 2004, 11:04 AM

Is there a mainstream software that will batch process 2/4mp pictures down to posting size of 200kb?

Lee · 10th December 2004, 01:50 PM

I have not used it, as I am most satisfied with the functionality I have in PhotoShip, but you may wish to try this free utility from Fookes Software: Fookes EzThumbs
I use Fookes' NoteTabPro and am most happy with that.

Here is another page: How to Reduce Size

wilked aka Khun Deng · 12th December 2004, 03:30 PM

Lee, I'm using Photoshop 5.0 and I have Windowes XP, I can follow the instructions all the way to compression, which I can only view when I try to save. Even after I put it on low it doesn't shrink the file size (nor do I get the side by side comparison).

The only workaround I've been able to come up with is, using XP, right click on a picture, select send email, open the attachment, copy it back to my photo folder. It works but I'm sure it's not the optimum solution.

Yannis · 12th December 2004, 09:07 PM

Change resolution is the trick.

You can have a picture as big as you want but the resolution for the Internet must be 72 pixels at inch. A higher resolution is good only for printing. Our screens dont use it.

With 72 pixels at inch the maximum size of the file is no more than 200kb.

wilked aka Khun Deng · 13th December 2004, 01:38 PM

Yannis, The default is already 72, then I resize to 640 width and it's still around 900kb, then I decrease the resolution to around 32 pixels per inch and it meets the size limit but it also shrinks the picture automatically to around 250 pixels wide.

View Poll Results: Which is the widest arrow that fits comfortably on your screen?
1024 pixels	7	21.21%
800 pixels	22	66.67%
640 pixels	4	12.12%
All are too large	0	0%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

4th December 2004, 02:59 AM	#1
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 914	Maximum Picture Widths in Forums The picture above shows common possible picture widths. Most likely the whole picture is too wide for your screen, and a slider bar has appeared on the bottom of your screen to allow you to pan the picture. This software is superior to our old software in that a big picture only appears to 'break the box' it is in, rather than stretching the text in the whole thread.

4th December 2004, 03:08 AM	#2
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 914	If your computer is not over a decade old... If your computer is not over a decade old, there is a good chance that you can increase your screen resolution. In Windows, right click on a part of your screen with no icons or toolbars. This will bring up a menu from which you should choose 'properties'. Now choose the 'settings' tab on the right at the top of the box which opens. See the slider for screen area? Move it slightly to the right for higher resolutions that will fit larger pictures on your screen. If you are at 640 by 480, try 800 by 600, from 800 by 600, try 1024 by 768. Further options are 1152 by 864 and 1280 by 1024. Most people never move this setting from how it came and miss much of what they paid for as far as their video card goes...

4th December 2004, 03:30 AM	#3
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	Will We Still have a 200 kb size limit , Lee ?

4th December 2004, 04:34 AM	#4
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 914	Yes. In setting the limit, I looked back at the hundreds of pictures I have posted in the old forum for the membership from 2002 to present. None of these exceeded 200 kb, though a few got close. The average size was 48 kb. The default limit was 20 kb. I fear that if I clear the 200 kb ceiling, it would not take more than a few potential oblivious and prolific members with multimegapixel cameras running on super high quality and directly uploading on broadband connections to massively expand disk space utilization and bandwidth consumption. The increase in quality perceivable to the average member would be neglible - indeed what they would notice would be significantly longer page load times - and the ultimate end result would probably come to the hard decision of taking earlier material off line and, as a practical matter, doing so indiscriminately except by date. I have made the offer to members without photo editing software that they may e-mail pictures to me for optimal jpeg compression with return of adequate quality manageable sized files for posting to them by return e-mail and this offer stands. Those members potentially wanting to post 1 mb images are more than welcome to host these images on their own webspace and to use the image tags.

4th December 2004, 04:41 AM	#5
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 914	All of that being said... All of that being said, the purpose of the above poll is to determine if the maximum width of pictures can be increased, both for uploads and for the static pages on the website. I suspect the 200 kb limit would still provide adequate headroom even if we were to go to the 1024 width

4th December 2004, 06:39 AM	#6
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Lee, I have an off-topic, but related question. Can you explain why it is that when I reduce the size of my photos (taken with a 4mp camera set at about 2288x1712 or 806kb) the quality degrades? I'm using a simple photo editing program to simply decrease pixels. Will compression make a difference?

10th December 2004, 11:04 AM	#7
Naga Basuki Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Big old machine shop/foundry/warehouse in Atlanta GA USA Posts: 51	Software to batch process large images to 200kb? Is there a mainstream software that will batch process 2/4mp pictures down to posting size of 200kb?

10th December 2004, 01:50 PM	#8
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 914	Here is one possibility I have not used it, as I am most satisfied with the functionality I have in PhotoShip, but you may wish to try this free utility from Fookes Software: Fookes EzThumbs I use Fookes' NoteTabPro and am most happy with that. Here is another page: How to Reduce Size

12th December 2004, 03:30 PM	#9
wilked aka Khun Deng Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oahu, Hawaii Posts: 166	Still working Lee, I'm using Photoshop 5.0 and I have Windowes XP, I can follow the instructions all the way to compression, which I can only view when I try to save. Even after I put it on low it doesn't shrink the file size (nor do I get the side by side comparison). The only workaround I've been able to come up with is, using XP, right click on a picture, select send email, open the attachment, copy it back to my photo folder. It works but I'm sure it's not the optimum solution.

12th December 2004, 09:07 PM	#10
Yannis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Athens Greece Posts: 479	Resolution Change resolution is the trick. You can have a picture as big as you want but the resolution for the Internet must be 72 pixels at inch. A higher resolution is good only for printing. Our screens dont use it. With 72 pixels at inch the maximum size of the file is no more than 200kb.

13th December 2004, 01:38 PM	#11
wilked aka Khun Deng Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oahu, Hawaii Posts: 166	?? Yannis, The default is already 72, then I resize to 640 width and it's still around 900kb, then I decrease the resolution to around 32 pixels per inch and it meets the size limit but it also shrinks the picture automatically to around 250 pixels wide.