On 31 Oct 2005 at 16:36, Kenneth Waller wrote: > Glad you're attempting this. I just wonder how many will comply with the > resultant outcome. > Really no need for more than 800 X 800 @ 72 with moderate jpeg compression, > yielding a file of no more than 75 to 150 kb
It's an interesting concept, I guess a 4x6 print gets across all that most images convey in simple terms too but you and I know what subtleties are lost in prints that size. I guess that's the disappointment in sharing images as small as 800x800 pixels particularly when the source image may be in the order of 80MP, the losses in detail are staggering. I instigated a similar survey some years back, it will be interesting to compare the results. As an aside by default even if I'm running my desk-top at 2048x1536 (which it will do quite well) I still have my Browser windows set to open at 1024x768. Thereafter it's easy to maximize the Browser window to make full use of the screen, I also have auto image resizing enabled so even if an images dimensions are beyond the bounds of the current screen it will be resized to fit, again it's very easy to then click on the image to reveal a detailed 1:1 view. So in short I guess I'm saying that aside from reasonable file size constraints when using the right tools no image should be too big to display. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
