Screen Resolutions.

[Steve Anderson]

Dear All,

Please take a few seconds to take part in this poll. It's regarding PC screen resolutions that you usually access the forum with whatever your OS might be.

Over time I have been asking members to try and keep the width of drawings/sketches/photos/etc. to a maximum width of 800 pixels, the height doesn't matter at all. This fits perfectly on a 1024x768 display, higher resolution screens will simply have a gray background around the posted item. This avoids members having to scroll left/right to read the associated text...which is annoying.

Also large high resolution files are often large, if you recall we ran out of storage space a year or two ago and Andrew had to dig deeper into his pockets to pay for increased space. While he continues to foot the bill I don't wish for that to happen again.

If you choose 'other' please let us know by posting a quick note.

So, please take part.

Cheers,

Steve A.

[DrZarkov]

My Mac has 1280 x 1050, at my working-space I use mostly my Amiga, at an old 17" TFT for 30 EUR at 1280 x 1024. My laptop has the good old 1024 x 768, I use it only when Windows is needed, that does not happen very often, just for converting films to NBTV...

[gary]

1440 x 900 as that is the native resolution of my Benq FP92W

I use 800 x 600 when using Linux as it doesn't recognise my video card, but I don't use it often, mainly just when I feel like a shed load of aggravation...

[Klaas Robers]

My desktop PC has a resolution of 1024 x 768, but most of the time I have a narrow window opened for my favorites. This leaves the width at about 800. Of course I can close that window and open it afterwards.

However pictures with a width of 1024 open a textwidth of more. And even when the text fits onto 1024, then I mis the name column.

Recently I got an Eee PC netbook, which has a maximum resolution of 1024 x 600.

So I should prefer pictures no wider than 800.

[Marcus]

I use 1680 X 1050 on my Mac, I also have an eeepc 901 with windows, not sure of the resolution it is set at though.

[dominicbeesley]

My main machine has 1680x1050(!) but I have to say I try to keep the size of pictures down but sometimes things like schematics just won't shrink down without losing too much detail.

I don't know how the bulletin board software works but is it possible to make them appear as thumbnails - like on the vintage-radio.net forum. On there you can see a small thumbnail, clicking on it opens a new window where one can zoom etc.

I know I've been guilty of posting over size images and then complained inwardly when I've tried to view the topic on my laptop which has a smaller screen and I end up having to scroll all over the shop!

Cheer

Dom

[gary]

I don't know how the bulletin board software works but is it possible to make them appear as thumbnails - like on the vintage-radio.net forum. On there you can see a small thumbnail, clicking on it opens a new window where one can zoom etc.

That would be ideal, but even if it was a link rather than being embedded would be useful.

[Steve Anderson]

I don't know how the bulletin board software works but is it possible to make them appear as thumbnails - like on the vintage-radio.net forum. On there you can see a small thumbnail, clicking on it opens a new window where one can zoom etc. Dom

Yes, that can be done, I was toying with the idea yesterday of having a small thumbnail which when clicked opened up the full sized version. Anyone with strong feelings for or against?

That would be ideal, but even if it was a link rather than being embedded would be useful.

That too can be done but I feel the first option is preferable.

Members thoughts?

Steve A.

[Klaas Robers]

As an example: the enormeous pictures Harry just posted at the thread about the fixation of the 32 mirrors. This enlarges the width of my screen for all the other postings of this thread. Why can't they be shrunk to a normal size?

To show the result I shrunk them to a width of 640. I think that I can see everything that is seen on the XXL pictures as well.

This will just fit on my 1024 pix wide screen including the name colomn at the left after I switched off my narrow favorite window at the very left of the screen.

[Steve Anderson]

Right, the re-sizing software for this forum doesn't appear to work. but the linking software does. Any image larger than 800 pixels wide or 2000 pixels high will be displayed as a link/download.

This I will run for a while to assess members reactions to it.

Steve A.

[Steve Anderson]

...I have to say I try to keep the size of pictures down but sometimes things like schematics just won't shrink down without losing too much detail. Dom

Agreed, schematics can use up a lot of resolution. What I do is break them up into chunks that would be quite visible on an A4 printed page which is narrower than any sensible PC screen. It involves a bit more work, sure, but I would rather that than members not bothering to read postings just because they (I) can't be bothered scrolling left/right.

Attached is a circuit diagram (part of "The Brute") which is more complex than most diagrams you'll see on this forum, yet is still fits comfortably. So it can be done.

Note the small file size too when using a .gif for line drawings, even in colour.

A higher resolution .pdf version is attached too, yet very similar file size, i.e. still small.

The circuit is interim, don't use it.

Steve A.

[Andrew Davie]

1280x768. laptop.

[Lawnboy]

i usually view the website on my widescreen laptop at 1280x800.

[smeezekitty]

1280x768

[Alan]

Running Linux Mepis, viewed on
Samsung 'SyncMaster 720N' at 1280 x 1024

Regards Alan