 | | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
