Poll: What screen resolution do you use?

[SharpByCoop]

Guys, just a quickie here. The reason I ask is because it helps me know what the largest no-sideways-scroll photo I can post. What is the majority rule...? Once the scroll bar comes in, it becomes a chore.

Windows users: Right click your desktop, and go to Properties. Then click the Settings tab on the right.

Funny, but the images preferred to be shown on the 'net are best in landscape mode: wider than thinner. But I have noticed that publications love 'portrait-style' images (thinner than wider), as it fits best into the column format they produce.

Any preferences?

BTW, I use a 60% JPEG compression figure on ALL my web images. Anything more is invisible to the eye, but takes up BIG filesize. It allows me to post 900-pixel-wide photos at under 200kb easily. 750-wide comes in around 100kb.

More than one choice is OK for multiple computers. Thanks for your time.

Coop

 

[Bob W]

Depends on the computer I'm using. My 'primary' computer has a 21" Trinitron, so I use 1024 x 768. All of my other computers have much smaller monitors so I use 800 x 600 on them.

I don't recall the exact setting on my laptop, but it's some widescreen setting that may not be listed above.

-Bob

 

[RDomina]

1680 x 1050
or
1280 x1024

 

[s0rce]

1400x1050 (14" laptop LCD)

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

1024x768 on the left monitor, 800x600 on the right monitor.
It is possible to stretch across both, so I voted the unusual size, but I usually use the 1024x768 side for browsing the internet, and the smaller side for my Photoshop Palettes, and videos.

 

[Gollnick]

Please keep in mind that many members don't have broadband access. Big pictures can take a long time to download.

Even 100KBytes can take a half-hour on dial-up.

I always encourage people to keep pictures on the forum under 50K. Generally, 450 pixels wide is good for a forum picture.

You can give a link to a higher-resolution version for those members with fast access.

 

[Nordic Viking]

1024 X 768 at home
1600 X 1200 on my laptop

Gollnick, theoretically a 100Kb image should take 85 secs to download on a the slowest possible dail-up modem (9,600kbps).

 

[FoxholeAtheist]

1280 x 1024 here

I was getting a MB every 7 minutes or so when I had dialup. 100kB would take 42 seconds at that rate. Perhaps Gollnick meant "a half minute"?

 

[Ryan8]

1280x1024. It's the native resolution of my monitor and looks best. Most 17"+ LCDs look best with this resolution.

 

[Ryan8]

1280 x 1024 here

I was getting a MB every 7 minutes or so when I had dialup. 100kB would take 42 seconds at that rate. Perhaps Gollnick meant "a half minute"?

He must have. There aren't many people living in the 1980s with 300bps modems.

 

[Psychopomp]

1280x1024 for me.

 

[Gollnick]

Opps. 30 seconds, not 30 minutes.

On a 9600 baud modem, it would take 17 1/2 minutes.

All of this assumes 100% utilization of the bandwidth by the ISP which is often not the case.

It's not just your connection to the ISP that matters. Downloading large files internationally often is very slow simply because of congested network connections along the way.

The point is that for forum use it is best to keep picture files small (I suggest 50K as a limit) and then provide a link to a larger image for those users who want to see it.

 

[Doug C]

1024 x 768.

 

[=Voodoo=]

bah....upgrade to 2005....it will help our economy

1600x1200

 

[Nordic Viking]

Coop,
Interesting with the 60% compression. Do you ever use the .GIF format?


Gollnick,
100Kb / 9600 baud
= 819200 Bits / 9600 bps
= 85.333 secs
How are you getting 17.5 minutes?

 

[SharpByCoop]

Chuck,

Lets disagree for a moment peaceably. Yup, there still are a lot of dial up users, and I am concious of them. That's why I make sure my images get no more than 60% compression to show on the web.

I said a lot, but at this point in our tech society, it is not a majority. I did a similar poll well over a year ago on Knife Network asking if they used dial-up or broadband: the results even then were a surprising 30% dial-up and 70% broadband. That was over year ago. I suspect the ratio has changed to 75/25% at this point.

My point to all of this is to be able to show the clearest and largest image that is useful to the majority of users. My business's success is to show crystal clear images and make my clients work look their best. A <50kb image at 450pixels wide is not going to do this. Especially if a large percentage of our members are using screen resolutions of 1024pixels wide or higher, and have broadband. A 450 pixel wide image is less than half the screen at that point. Even smaller at higher resolutions. I see I am at the low end at 1024, myself.

My standard size is 750pixels wide. at around 100kb filesize. If 85% of users are using 1024 or higher, then a 900 pixel wide image can be shown without the scroll. On occasion... Not all the time. Yup, I can make a thumb image link, and yes, thanks, if I was to do the 900pixel-wide version I would do such. Good call.

A knifemaker can't let out any bad work, and neither can I. It's unfortunate for those who need to wait longer (dial-up), but I promise them it will be worth the wait. At least from me.

Coop

 

[SharpByCoop]

I said smaller as a choice, but no one has commented on that. I think some older monitors still had ability to show at only 640x480, but that's VERY unusual.

Nordic Viking: No, I haven't used. a .gif format. My understanding is it will reduce filesize if the image does not have a lot of colors, like a sign or text, but when the image has a lot of detail it is larger or more inefficient. I'll see if I can find the link that explains the formats best.

The internet standard on photographs is JPEG, and that's what I use. What do you know? You're pretty savvy on this stuff.

Coop

 

[Nordic Viking]

Coop,

It was just the 60% compression concept that got me thinking about quality, I normally use 80% (before today ) for screen-only jpegs. You're absolutely correct about GIF not being optimal for detailed photos, I somehow thought you did drawings too.

As always, a fascinating and interesting thread when Coop and Gollnick talk about photography and give tips. :thumbup:

 

[Gollnick]

How are you getting 17.5 minutes?

Boy. I am wrong again.

You're incorrect too, though. You're forgetting that dial-up modems are async. As a result, in addition to the eight data bits, there's a start- and a stop-bit for every byte.

So, 100KBytes = 1,000,000 bits

1,000,000 bits * (1 second / 9600 bits) = 104.167 seconds is about 1 3/4 minutes assuming 100% utilization of the bandwidth.

 

[Gollnick]

You're absolutely correct about GIF not being optimal for detailed photos, I somehow thought you did drawings too.

GIF works by first defining a "color pallet" and then for each pixel it simply stores which color that pixel is from that limited pallet. If you can get your pallet down to just black or white, then gif can store each pixel as just one bit in the file. An 800x600 black-and-white (not grey-scale but true black-and-white such as a mechanical drawing) gif is about 60KBytes. The advantage of this is that there is absolutely no loss of detail, no blurring, etc. jpeg could store that same file smaller, but with loss of detail.

If an image has only four colors in it, then gif puts each pixel into just two bits and the 800x600 is a 120KByte file.

Here's the problem: a standard digital picture had a 24-bit color depth. Each pixel can be any one of over 16 million colors! An 800x600 photo in gif would be about a 1.5MByte file. On the other hand, it would be prefect. There would be no loss of detail at all.

When you go to store a file as gif, your editting software will ask you for the desired color depth. Gif gets "compression" by giving up color depth and you can directly control how much you want to give up.

gifs are great for smaller images and for images that, by their nature, don't have many colors, diagrams, sketches, that sort of thing. But, gif is not the best choice for small file size for larger images or for full-color images.