 | | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) I'm in the low end camp. For most things, a 640x480 image is plenty, especially if you crop it. I will go up to 800x600 or even 1024x768, but I much prefer to keep them small. Of course I'm still running a 33k modem so large images are a (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: train 3 pics uploaded on brickshelf
|
|
There should be a main picture page on Calum Tsang's Peachy Server (w/ RTL Events photos) regarding Train 3. (I don't think it is quite ready yet.) It will link all the photos that everybody took. I am quite sure that there were several with photos, (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | RE: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) My preference is at least 400 pixels wide and at most 1024 wide. This doesn't hold for wallpapers, of course. Perhaps there's a way that the HTML could be modified to resize the images to the browser width if the image is large? Of course this (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) I notice this in IE 6 on XP the other night. If you open only the picture in the browser, it automatically resizes the image to a smaller size. Even though the quality of the resize was fairly good, I wasn't a fan, and turned off this option (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) I usually go for the 'low end', and size my pictures to around 640x480. If someone asks for a more detailed image of something, I'll either go full-size, or try to crop down to just what they want to see. I've got a 3.3megapixel camera, so if (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) I believe it's part of IE6 and XP. Haven't tested it myself, of course :) Dan (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) What version of IE does this? If you click on an image while in a file view, it will load just the image (not in a web page). In every browser I have ever seen this causes the image to be shown actual size (with scroll bars if necessary). KL (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
(...) Good point. I've uploaded some whoppers in the past too, usually when I'm rushed. But I'd tend to say no more than screen size (1024x768 or maybe even 800x600 or even 640x480) unless you really WANT people to have to pan and scan to capture (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | image sizes on Brickshelf
|
|
After looking at Ben's pictures I had a question for everyone. I find it difficult to take in the entire picture when I have to scroll. I was wondering if anyone else had any feelings about what the optimal size pic is to post (on say, Brickshelf). (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: train 3 pics uploaded on brickshelf
|
|
Thanks for the pics! Are there any more pics of the sculpted areas of the layout. Can you give a description of the infrastructure you use to achieve the different levels. Also, I would like to see better pics of that bi-level blue and gray commuter (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.trains)
|
