What is your monitor's horizontal resolution ?

[James Shadle]

This is in the General forum rather than Digital Workflow or Equipment because your answers will be used to decide if we should increase posted image sizes.
Please select on of the poll questions.
Thanks!

[Don Lacy]

Would love it if you increased image sizes both in pixels and bytes.

[arash_hazeghi]

2560 pixels!

[Don Lacy]

Oh yeah I forgot 2560 pixels wide for me too i think you need to add another poll response it would be interesting to see how many user are using 27 and 30 inch monitors

[John Chardine]

2560 too.

[Jim Neiger]

2560 for me as well.

[Andrew Merwin]

2880 pixels

[WIlliam Maroldo]

1920 pixels. IMO, since it is so easy for someone to "steal" images from the web (simple screen shot, for example) the only thing we have left , other than large defacing watermarks, is keeping the images relatively small, under the assumption that 3x4 inch prints aren't a big reason to steal images. What I would really like is allowing 1024 px on the vertical, since I often shoot in vertical format. regards~Bill

[arash_hazeghi]

Bill, if you are concerned about your images being stolen you can continue posting at small size. We want to keep the site competitive so the posting size will increase, I think the best choice now is 1200 pixels wide and 1024 pixels tall but smaller sizes will still be allowed.

We will probably set some lower size too, if the images posted are too small it becomes difficult to provide meaningful critique.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Thanks Arash, I'm not worried about my images, sounds like free advertising, but the basic problem of hi rez images on the web. 1200 x 1024 isn't that much larger than now, and I get my V format. Sounds good to me. regards~Bill

[Tom Graham]

My monitor is an NEC 1600x1200px, 20 inch (diag) screen. I can see the desirability of a larger screen for multiple images/tasks. But not for me.
I like the now 1024 (x800) pixel size - even though it does not fill my 1600px screen. But, feel file size is on the small side, perhaps 400Kb? BTW, has anyone (calling R. Clark) analyzed IQ versus file size, versus, image detail?
Or perhaps both? Comes up as 1024, click and you get 2560?
Tom
ps - if only BPN size were say 2560 px, I could not view it on my 1600px monitor without mucho scrolling, correct?
If so, that would pretty much "kill" BPN for me.
I wonder, if like for forums views vs comments which run about 1 to 50, if the response to this questionaire is the same ratio.? If so, you may not, I feel, getting a good profile of your typical member's monitor. (Only the "high end" user ?)

[Doug Brown]

My desktop screen is huge, but I access BPN from my laptop frequently. 2560 pixels wide or more than 800 pixels tall would spoil the laptop experience (my MacBook Air is 1440x900). Scrolling to see an entire image is less than ideal.

[Jonathan Ashton]

My screen res 1280 x 1024 (Eizo)

[Grady Weed]

I agree with Doug Brown and Tom Graham's comments here James. Non-members do not get a large view of the image anyway, and quite a few members use a laptop to view images on the road, at work, etc. So...when we as members use a larger monitor to view then critique images, I believe the resulting numbers would be much smaller then you realize. Scrolling to view an image would be a downer, IMHO.

A good question however to raise. Please post the results for us James. Thanks for asking.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

James, 16.4-in laptop at home( don't have any other monitor at home) has 1600X900 resolution. In office, I have a monitor that is 1920X1080.

[arash_hazeghi]

I agree with Doug Brown and Tom Graham's comments here James. Non-members do not get a large view of the image anyway, and quite a few members use a laptop to view images on the road, at work, etc. So...when we as members use a larger monitor to view then critique images, I believe the resulting numbers would be much smaller then you realize. Scrolling to view an image would be a downer, IMHO.

A good question however to raise. Please post the results for us James. Thanks for asking.

non-registered viewers can now see a large image as well.


I think we will go for 1200 pixels.

[John Chardine]

As with Doug my second display is 1400 px wide.

[James Shadle]

My monitor is an NEC 1600x1200px, 20 inch (diag) screen. I can see the desirability of a larger screen for multiple images/tasks. But not for me.
I like the now 1024 (x800) pixel size - even though it does not fill my 1600px screen. But, feel file size is on the small side, perhaps 400Kb? BTW, has anyone (calling R. Clark) analyzed IQ versus file size, versus, image detail?
Or perhaps both? Comes up as 1024, click and you get 2560?
Tom
ps - if only BPN size were say 2560 px, I could not view it on my 1600px monitor without mucho scrolling, correct?
If so, that would pretty much "kill" BPN for me.
I wonder, if like for forums views vs comments which run about 1 to 50, if the response to this questionaire is the same ratio.? If so, you may not, I feel, getting a good profile of your typical member's monitor. (Only the "high end" user ?)

Tom,
No worries, we are looking closer to 1200-1400 Max!
I don't think we can have two different resolution permissions. I do like that idea.

[James Shadle]

Bill, if you are concerned about your images being stolen you can continue posting at small size. We want to keep the site competitive so the posting size will increase, I think the best choice now is 1200 pixels wide and 1024 pixels tall but smaller sizes will still be allowed.

We will probably set some lower size too, if the images posted are too small it becomes difficult to provide meaningful critique.

May increase would be a better choice than will increase.

[James Shadle]

I agree with Doug Brown and Tom Graham's comments here James. Non-members do not get a large view of the image anyway, and quite a few members use a laptop to view images on the road, at work, etc. So...when we as members use a larger monitor to view then critique images, I believe the resulting numbers would be much smaller then you realize. Scrolling to view an image would be a downer, IMHO.

A good question however to raise. Please post the results for us James. Thanks for asking.

Grady,
Thanks for logging in to view images!!!
About two weeks ago we opened the forums up for image viewing by non-registered users.
Until then non-registered or those not logged in could only see thumbnails.

[arash_hazeghi]

Grady,
Thanks for logging in to view images!!!
About two weeks ago we opened the forums up for image viewing by non-registered users.
Until then non-registered or those not logged in could only see thumbnails.

that was a good decision, now users can share their posts with friends/family who are not registered.

[Jeannean Ryman]

I'd like the 1200 size increase. I save for my Zenfolio at that size, so it would save me a resize for when I post here.

[Grady Weed]

Thank you James and Arash for your responses.

[Ulli Hoeger]

I appreciate the plan to allow larger image sizes.
As far as screen resolution is concerned you may want to check your web hosting tools. There are very likely statistics that will tell you along with other things exactly the percentage of screen resolution, browser type, OS etc. visitors of this site use.

Cheers

Ulli

[Diane Miller]

I have an old Eizo, 1680 x 1050. Need to upgrade it someday. A little bigger would be nice. Being able to view posts easily on the laptop is also good, but not as important. It's a 13" MacPro, small for travel convenience, 1280 x 800.

[Morkel Erasmus]

My resolution is currently 1680px wide because I'm still on a 20" screen. That'll change soon though...

[Doug West]

Don't know if this would be possible, but if/when you do go to a larger size, have
the normal size that we see in the message. Then when you click on the image,
that opens up to the larger image. This way the larger image gets more of the screen.

Because our screens might be wide enough, but we're losing on width because the
info of the poster is taking up the left part of the screen, which could be used for the
image.

The best example of what I'm talking about would be at dpreview and their forums.

Doug

[Andreas Liedmann]

I own the BEST monitor on the planet ....... Quato Intelli 300 excellence - 2560 px wide.

Mercedes amongst the other screens, best decision i made in the past to buy this screen.

Andreas