In article <noemailhere-76242E.18033108052008@news.mts.net>, The NewGuy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > Well obviously if you start with a pic that is 300 x 200 and zoom to > > > 800% its going to be a blur. Start with 3000 x 2200 > > > > It is not good to even begin talking about a pic this size for a web > > page for normal public consumption. > > Well if you want good detail, you're going to have to opt for high > resolution from the start. I realize this is rare - and I don't expect > it of course. But that's just the way it works. >
Websites in general are not visited by people who wish to look at pictures like terrorists or CIA look at satellite shots to work out and plan things!
The resolution of your monitor is one thing. The px size of a pic is another thing. The quality of a pic of any size is another thing. Jpg compression operates on a pic to produce any number of same size pics of varying quality. These things all need to be distinguished and your statement is obscure as between them.
A 600 by 400px picture of under 100k on a website is often absolutely perfect for the job at hand. It is not some sad compromise for something else. It is important to stay calm, keep perspective, not be greedy on behalf of people. Most pics on websites are quite crappy and most are quite unnecessary. Small, highly pertinent pictures with links to bigger if there is a point is the way to go. This is something that better authors do. You seem to be putting in some plug for authors to be filling huge screens with low compressed pics for a reason that totally escapes me.
> > But, to be fair to you, you are touching on a technique that I have > > [played with myself. Now and then I want a pic to be able to grow and > > shrink with the text size. Under modest text size changes, this can work > > very well at least on Mac machines (I have experienced poor results on > > Windows which have tempered my enthusiasm and am still investigating > > this.). > > If you want a graphic to maintain perspective to the text, you need to > view it in Opera. The OS doesn't make any difference as Opera does it > with both OS's. If there is another browser that does this, please let > us know. Opera has many glitches and hiccups - I'd love to ditch it but > so far haven't found anything that can work web pages with such logic. > > > To make this work, and for all browsers, not just special zooming ones > > like Opera, it is best to prepare the pics to be good for folk with > > eyesight that needs a few 'notches up' of the text size. So you prepare > > a pic, to give rough figures, that will normally be seen at 300px wide > > at wider. In other words, you get your master pic, a huge one from a > > modern camera and you size it to perhaps 500px. > > You mean 500 x 300? If so that's a pretty awful quality of detail. A > minimum is 1024 x 768 I would think. Then at least its going to > reasonably sharp at full screen size for most people.
I can see now that you are not aware of the distinction between fine quality and size, you seem headlong bound into almost equating them?
> > What monitor do you use? You say you use the best. I would then presume > its running at 3840 x 2400
I'm sorry, but I can't see the relevance of this to the topic at hand... (I did apologise for not being up to date on latest Opera zoom feature details where this business started. Please, no need to go into hardware here...)
