 | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —Timothy Gould
|
| | | (...) I've been busy and pretty much unable to post for most of the BS 'drama' but would like to chime in now. Firstly I'd like to extend my thanks to Kevin for providing this service for so long. It has been one of the 'constants' in the AFOL (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) I tend to agree with Tim. Limit free users to X amount of space. Disallow .bmp files. Maybe add some new functionalities for featured account holders. I'll be one of them. JOHN (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —Tony Kilaras
|
| | | | | (...) Tim, I have to disagree with a blanket restriction regarding filesize restrictions for images. While a 256K limit is fine for single MOCs (like your dazzling creations), it can be inadequate for other things like train displays and larger MOCs (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —Jack Hawk
|
| | | | | | (...) Perhaps the file size restriction could be on non-paying accounts, kind of "you get what you pay for" mentality. The value added feature for paying users could be a Flickr-like "view all sizes" option so pix could be seen at a higher (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —Dave Sterling
|
| | | | (...) Tim: What is considered a valid file size/resolution for BS pics? I've always kinda wondered what I should resize to for BS. I usually upload at 1024x768, but sometimes 1600x1200 if I really want people to see fine detail. Is this too big? I (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | In lugnet.general, Dave Sterling wrote (...) I can't speak for Tim, but for myself: Pictures on the net should be no smaller than 500 pixels high, 600 is good, 700 is pushing it. I base this off of how large the photo is on my screen. I prefer to (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —Dave Sterling
|
| | | | (...) Ahh. Point taken. The blurry crap pics on BS frustrate me to no end. I know everyone can't be a professional photographer, but c'mon...let's at least get the subject in focus. :-) I like the idea of cropping. I've been doing that with more and (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | (...) Hi Dave, Lenny has pretty well summed up my argument (although I'm happy with a slightly larger photo size). On the whole I care less about dimensions and more about Kb wastage. With decent jpeg compression you can have a pretty large pic with (...) (17 years ago, 23-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —Edward Kohl
|
| | | | | | (...) I also would like to see a Kb limit on posted pictures. I compress all my posted jpeg with JPEG Wizard from Pegasus Imaging. None of my posted files are larger then 350Kb and they are 1152 x 768. Pegasus’s more expensive Wizard has a (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | (...) Also not everyone can afford a decent camera. I too agree that Brickshelf should limit the kb size of images and not the resolution. And completly ban all video clips (due to their large size) and also all *.BMP files (whoever decided that the (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jul-07, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
