View Full Version : Should I be more flexible with the image resolution rules? Give me your input...

10 October 2004, 01:16 PM
Hi guys, Roberto Here,

I am thinking of being more flexible with the resolution rules. Maybe making the rule that the image cannot be bigger than 800x 600.

So what do you guys think?


10 October 2004, 01:24 PM
heheh, some of my images are 800x600.

As long as they can be viewed without scrolling (on 1280x1024), that's fine by me.
800x600 is fine.

10 October 2004, 01:29 PM
Image size is fine by me, but I wonder will it affect loading times?
I only ask because the site has been taking AGES to load recently and I don't know if it's me or if it's because there is so many people looking at it at the same time, what with it being so popular and all?


10 October 2004, 02:18 PM
In think MAX size should be 800x600. If they are any larger, it takes forever for them to load. A lot of times I get a red X and come back later and it will have loaded a large picture. If they are too big, they have to be scrolled and the image loses something when viewed that way.

Although most people on this board post complete images, its supposed to be a "sketch" group. Hee hee.

10 October 2004, 02:39 PM
I think maximum size cannot be bigger than 800x600 would have been good enough. :) Would there be a minimum size rule?

10 October 2004, 03:05 PM
I think maximum size cannot be bigger than 800x600
I second that. We're talking about sketches aren't we?

10 October 2004, 03:32 PM
That would be ok... one could use more extreme formats, like 800 x 300 (something like that) while retaining a good performance. How about 800 x 800 pix max?
Currently the rule says exactly 800 x 600, right?

10 October 2004, 04:09 PM
i concur, no bigger than 800x800.

that way you can make the width/length variable w/o allowing people to post ridiculous sizes.

10 October 2004, 04:21 PM
I think 800x600 sounds reasonable (especially if your hosting your images somewhere else). If people wanted a square palette, they could go 600x600 (which should be plenty for something that is labeled "Sketch" forum).

10 October 2004, 04:48 PM
yep max 600x800 is big enough imo

10 October 2004, 05:18 PM
Yeah I like the idea of just having a max size, but being able to play with the aspect ratio. Great idea.

10 October 2004, 05:59 PM
Max 800x600 or 600x800 is fine, and it would be great to play with different aspectratios.

10 October 2004, 08:27 PM
Images can't be 800x600... he... ehehe... ehem... I've been under scrutiny for awhile now, haven't I!?

10 October 2004, 08:31 PM
Hey Rasdasa, I thought the rule didn't apply to you ;)

10 October 2004, 09:03 PM that you mention it!! :)

10 October 2004, 11:04 PM
hehe...*ehem* tries to whimper out of the opressive light of wilfull-ignorance-revealed.

10 October 2004, 01:47 AM
Max 800x600 or 600x800 is fine, and it would be great to play with different aspectratios.Agree with you

10 October 2004, 03:14 AM
I couldn't give a rats about image size, rasdasa's drawings definitely look better big.

10 October 2004, 07:29 AM
Before, when I was using my own personal computer to access the internet via a nice fat broadband pipe, I didn't care what the resolution was because my monitors could handle it and the pages downloaded just as fast as the image hosts would allow (kinda like clicking through channels on the tv). Now that I'm on a dinky 15" monitor and connecting via AOL dial-up, I'm a lot more sympathetic (you should pity me). I am tempted to say just post linked thumbnails that when clicked would bring up the full image, but I think there are two reasons not to do that.

Number one, and probably the most important, is level of complication. I know it is possible for many of us to do that now with what we already know and the resources currently available, but I think it is obvious that the forum has enough complication as it is. We don't want to keep people away just because they don't know a few simply yet not completely obvious and straightforward tricks.

Number two, and more artistically philosophical, is the purpose for the forum itself. This is a participatory forum where anyone who participates deserves equal exposure. I get the feeling that thumbnails, while convenient for load-time sake, would mean that a lot of the images by lesser-knowns would just get passed over.

I still think that we should use thumbnails for the sketch-of-the-week thing though but I have no idea how to arrange for that.

Maximum size of 800x800 is fine by me. I try to keep mine smaller now that I'm using a weaker computer/connection than I used to. I'd even suggest aiming even lower if the image is simple enough.

10 October 2004, 09:56 AM
I think it's cool when the sketches can have variable sizes. Like 500x900,
300x1000 and stuff. I think more important is the compression. You could say
jpgs whith approx. 30 - 100KB. Just a thought....

10 October 2004, 01:24 PM
i'm not a fan of having to scroll to see the entire image. compression is important, but so is seeing the image. the 800 limit seems reasonable with varying aspect ratios. if you want maybe your image could link to a hi res one? that might be nice.

10 October 2004, 04:33 PM
I think the 800x800 limits is decent.
I'm not sure what the most common resoultion configuration of a typical PC user is nowadays.
I use 1152x864 (odd i know). I'd like to know really. It helps when planning my website development....

10 October 2004, 04:41 PM
i'm not a fan of having to scroll to see the entire image. compression is important, but so is seeing the image. the 800 limit seems reasonable with varying aspect ratios. if you want maybe your image could link to a hi res one? that might be nice.
I completely second this... you could work on a 500x900 or something and then scale it down to fit the 800x600 margin and link the high res for people how want more detail. Seriously tho, one would think that people working in CG would know how to compress images for web!

10 October 2004, 10:40 PM
The one thing that bothered me most about this forum was the aspect ratio. I think the filesize is the most important thing to worry about. (I believe goro said this as well). 90k is more than enough to post with. As I look back to all of my posts there was only one that was over 75k (most were about 50k). If you use Photoshop's "save for web (" the filesize could always be so nice and small. I am also a strong believer that aspect ratio is as important to the artpiece as what is in the image. You can use this in such an artistic manner. For instance imagine a 100x2000 image: as you scroll to the end it could beautifully tell a story (with color, frames, whatever you decide). This would really liven up the pieces and this forum.

So here is my final say.
keep image size under 90k (or whatever the group decides) max. no min.
if Image is larger than the max...then post as a thumbnail/ with the file size in the post.
ie: myKillerImage.jpg (101k)

Chris Reid

good work everyone, I have been stopping in once and a while to check out the work.....
sorry I had to stop for a while....hope to be back in a month or so....

10 October 2004, 12:01 AM
Practically what really matters to me is how fast the forum pages load, specially when you are viewing like about 7 sketches per page.

I agree with maximum File size of a 100 kb and let the size be free for the artists to descide according to their visual in mind.

Bottom line.. More freedom, More speed !

10 October 2004, 12:15 AM
What would be REALLY interesting would be to set some image size rules as an extra challenge, like taking a topic and doing it at 128x128 pixels.:D

10 October 2004, 05:20 AM
So are you saying that you currently don't count the votes for images that don't fit the size limit?

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 05:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.