Administrator
|
Hi all,
One of the things that I've been putting off for a long time is adding some new UFO publicity photos to my UFO website. I'm hoping that I may actually get some free time in the coming weeks to start working on that (fingers-crossed). One question I always put to myself is "what resolution should I use?". Too little resolution (e.g, 640 x 480) and you can't see all the details. Too much resolution (e.g. 3000 x 2000) and it won't fit on anyone's computer screen and it'll be a slow file to download. I suppose it will all depend on the quality of the source material (most of my source material isn't that great), but if anyone has any comments to make on this before I get started, please do! (the last time I did this I was using 768 x 1024 pixels as a good compromise) Thanks! Marc |
The bigger the better! Connections are much better these days.
Thanks in advance! >From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]> >Reply-To: [hidden email] >To: [hidden email] >Subject: [SHADO] Coming soon... new UFO photos? >Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:31:19 -0800 > >Hi all, > >One of the things that I've been putting off for a long time is >adding some new UFO publicity photos to my UFO website. I'm >hoping that I may actually get some free time in the coming >weeks to start working on that (fingers-crossed). > >One question I always put to myself is "what resolution should >I use?". Too little resolution (e.g, 640 x 480) and you can't >see all the details. Too much resolution (e.g. 3000 x 2000) >and it won't fit on anyone's computer screen and it'll be >a slow file to download. I suppose it will all depend on the >quality of the source material (most of my source material >isn't that great), but if anyone has any comments to make >on this before I get started, please do! (the last time >I did this I was using 768 x 1024 pixels as a good >compromise) > >Thanks! > >Marc _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
> One question I always put to myself is "what > resolution should > I use?". Too little resolution (e.g, 640 x 480) and > you can't > see all the details. Too much resolution (e.g. 3000 > x 2000) > and it won't fit on anyone's computer screen and > it'll be > a slow file to download. I suppose it will all > depend on the > quality of the source material (most of my source > material > isn't that great), but if anyone has any comments to > make > on this before I get started, please do! (the last > time > I did this I was using 768 x 1024 pixels as a good > compromise) > 768 x 1024 would probably be the best compromise or possibly 1280 x 960. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
You could use a slideshow generation program like this one:
http://www.coffeecup.com/photo-gallery/help/tutorials/ and have the images expand to full resolution if clicked. If this works the way I think it does, you'd just upload full-resolution images and let the software do the re-sizing of the thumbnails and the selected previewed image for the user. I assume you'll be scanning photos yourself and that's why you are asking about how much resolution. Paul Marc Martin wrote: > One question I always put to myself is "what resolution should > I use?". Too little resolution (e.g, 640 x 480) and you can't > see all the details. Too much resolution (e.g. 3000 x 2000) > and it won't fit on anyone's computer screen and it'll be > a slow file to download. I suppose it will all depend on the > quality of the source material (most of my source material > isn't that great), but if anyone has any comments to make > on this before I get started, please do! (the last time > I did this I was using 768 x 1024 pixels as a good > compromise) > > Thanks! |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Hi
1024 x 768 works for me :) the higher the better, but don't wish to be greedy. Thanks for sharing what you have Marc... Best to all, Griff In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: > > One question I always put to myself is "what resolution should > I use?". Too little resolution (e.g, 640 x 480) and you can't > see all the details. Too much resolution (e.g. 3000 x 2000) > and it won't fit on anyone's computer screen and it'll be > a slow file to download. |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
You might have an available selection of different sizes (small 300x200 sizes for quick previews, and then the larger more detailed available for those who want the full detail). I always use a photo program to view larger picture files, that way I can zoom in or out as I please. Just download the photo first before viewing it. Anyone with such a program can view any sized files w/out that annoying "tunnel vision" problem. ------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Martin To: [hidden email] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:31 PM Subject: [SHADO] Coming soon... new UFO photos? Hi all, One of the things that I've been putting off for a long time is adding some new UFO publicity photos to my UFO website. I'm hoping that I may actually get some free time in the coming weeks to start working on that (fingers-crossed). One question I always put to myself is "what resolution should I use?". Too little resolution (e.g, 640 x 480) and you can't see all the details. Too much resolution (e.g. 3000 x 2000) and it won't fit on anyone's computer screen and it'll be a slow file to download. I suppose it will all depend on the quality of the source material (most of my source material isn't that great), but if anyone has any comments to make on this before I get started, please do! (the last time I did this I was using 768 x 1024 pixels as a good compromise) Thanks! Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Administrator
|
davrecon wrote:
> You might have an available selection of different sizes (small 300x200 sizes > for quick previews, and then the larger more detailed available Yes, I have done that in the past (for example, http://ufoseries.com/hardware), but that is more work on my part, and more files to put online/link to. I'd like to make things as easy for myself as possible... Marc |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |