Image display size on RFF changed?

[Ron (Netherlands)]

It is too small and really does nothing to decrease required bandwidth since the full size picture loads and is scaled.

The smallest size should be 1024, however I would vote for 1200 wide. All modern laptops and most tablets can easily display that. The forum apps for phones reduce the pictures anyway.

+1 especially if we want to appreciate each others MF files 😉

 

[Addy101]

It is too small and really does nothing to decrease required bandwidth since the full size picture loads and is scaled.

The smallest size should be 1024, however I would vote for 1200 wide. All modern laptops and most tablets can easily display that. The forum apps for phones reduce the pictures anyway.

Hmmm, the iPad mini is only 1024, so 1200 won't do for a lot of folks... and not everybody is using an app on his phone.

 

[btgc]

So here we have two camps - ones (myself including) are content with medium sized pictures and others want images blowed up to size of screen. As screens aren't all same it's not easy task to design layout fitting all cases.

On 3:4 ratio display some pictures creep out of frame horizontally, on wide displays portrait oriented pictures may not fit vertically (honestly, I think I've seen images not fitting wide displays also horizontally!). Scrolling display to see whole image kills most beautyful pictures....Imagine sitting behind printed book and unfolding each page to see missing 1/4th of image....

Also keep in mind left part of screen is dedicated for user info, vertically some part is taken up by browser (some more, some less, and how you configure 'em but there are different visible areas) and thus not not whole screen is reserved for picture.

 

[jonmanjiro]

So here we have two camps - ones (myself including) are content with medium sized pictures and others want images blowed up to size of screen. As screens aren't all same it's not easy task to design layout fitting all cases.

On 3:4 ratio display some pictures creep out of frame horizontally, on wide displays portrait oriented pictures may not fit vertically (honestly, I think I've seen images not fitting wide displays also horizontally!). Scrolling display to see whole image kills most beautyful pictures....Imagine sitting behind printed book and unfolding each page to see missing 1/4th of image....

Also keep in mind left part of screen is dedicated for user info, vertically some part is taken up by browser (some more, some less, and how you configure 'em but there are different visible areas) and thus not not whole screen is reserved for picture.

If this poll is anything to go by, the main camp by far would prefer a default image display size of 800 pixels wide or 1024 pixels wide, both of which are not too large but considerably larger than the current default image size of 500 pixels wide.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142949

 

[SausalitoDog]

I'm definitely in favor of much larger images in the threads...just to see how it would go, why not make it so that those who DON'T want larger images can click on each one to make them smaller? I think that would be many fewer than those who actually want to see the quality of the fine images made in this group.

But that's just me...

Tom

 

[btgc]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142949

Oh, what a relief - thanks, voted for 800

 

[sevo]

I'm definitely in favor of much larger images in the threads...just to see how it would go, why not make it so that those who DON'T want larger images can click on each one to make them smaller?

Tell that to anybody whose smartphone data plan is exceeded by large images... Most of the problems with large images are a matter of transport and processing volume, so they can only be avoided if the images never make it into the download - allowing the viewer to downsize after the fact merely adds an insult to the injury.