|
Re: What doesn't it have ?
In reply to apaflo,
4 months ago
|
apaflo wrote:
Detail Man wrote:
apaflo wrote:
Simon Joinson wrote:
CFynn wrote:
I'm sure DPR collects statistics on the screen resolutions used by visitors to the site and makes their decision on what is the resolution used on the site based on those figures.
So something like 17% of users have 1024x768 or smaller screen resolution. (And at least 35.5% have 800 or less in at least one dimension.)
Now, is that actually the screen resolution, the size of the window the browser is in, or the size of the window in which an image is displayed?
Those numbers are the screen-size ("resolution") that the users' OSs are set to as reported by internet browsers to the DPReview servers.
That is what it appears to be, and that is also the least useful possible data. It tells almost nothing about the actual size of a displayed image, other than that it is somewhat unlikely to be greater than that.
That would seem so, alright (as the above numbers describe the full screen-size).
Regardless though, even at 17% you don't want to alienate a set of users that large by assuming nobody would use a screen that size and making it impossible to use effectively!
The viewing interface (already) defaults to the "Fit to screen" option. That functionality seems to "fit the bill" (for any screen-size) as it stands, does it not ? Is that not working correctly ?
But it doesn't default to any "fit the screen" option. There is no reason to believe that everyone runs their browser in full screen mode.
Correct. It instead "fits" the viewing interface (at the pixel-size that it appears at). I have assumed that varies as a function of the screen-size set by the OS. Maybe not. My (total) screen-height is 1200 pixels. Is the height of the viewing interface as displayed exceeding the screen-size on other users' monitors ? If so, that would indeed be potentially problematic ...
The whole point and benefit of the new viewer (it seems to me) is to not leave users who are viewing on larger pixel-size screens having to peer and squint at images that are down-sampled to some "lowest common denominator" pixel-size when viewing images displayed in posts ...
That pixel-size has (in the newer system) previously been 940 pixels maximum (in either horizontal or vertical dimensions). All images with larger pixel-dimensions were not only down-sampled to 940 pixels maximum, they were also re-encoded using 2x2 Chroma Sub-sampling and a maximum 90% Quality Factor (both of which compromise resolution).
Everything I've seen is sized at 560 pixels max.
That remains the size of images displayed in posts (without expansion). In the (newer) system (prior to yesterday), the display size of the in-post images could be "enlarged" to (a down-sampled to maximum of) 940 pixel-size (in either horizontal or vertical dimensions) display (by left-clicking on the images).
Note that I have a "screen" which is 3200x1200 (actually two 1600x1200 monitors). But I never ever run anything at full screen. The current browser (Opera) is using a 1486x1086 window. An image in another thread is being display using 811x1192 screen pixels, but if downloaded it is a 374x560 pixel image.
The new in-post image viewing interface is up-sampling images ? Could you provide a link to that ?
940 pixels maximum (in either horizontal or vertical dimensions) was too small to be able to resolve details, and additional loss of resolution that resulted from the re-encoding only made things worse.
Are you capable of displaying images with significantly greater than 940 pixels?
With my 1200 pixel-height monitor, yes.
And if so, what about the person with an 800x600 screen that then cannot get both a reasonable image size for viewing and have reasonable sized text at the same time?
When I am interested in looking closer at images, (most) of the text is of little interest to me.
Can anybody explain to me specifically what the problem with the new viewing interface might be ?
I'm not having any problem with it at all. But I don't expect to judge image sharpness from what I see as a "preview" display. If I want to judge such things my mechanism in the past has been to download the largest size I can, and pull it up in either my favorite viewer or my favorite editor, where I can adjust it for full screen or any magnification including viewing a 100% crop.
Sure. Same here. It just seems that the new in-post viewing interface is providing an alternative to having to do that. I just checked, and the "Large" size images in the DPReview Image Galleries continue to down-sample uploaded images to a maximum pixel-height of 1200 pixels (in addition to re-encoding the original uploaded JPG using 2x2 CSS and QF=90% max.).
A large majority of users do not elect to allow the downloading of the original JPGs uploaded to DPReview Image Galleries (in their DPReview profile permissions) - so those originals (with the exception of this in-post image viewing interface) are not otherwise accessible. That (new) accessibility seems like a distinct improvement (in the case of DPReview Gallery images).
Am going to test the system by inserting a (DPReview Image Gallery) image (the uploaded original of which is 4043x3032 pixel-size). It displays at around 1147x861 pixels in the in-post viewing interface by default (on my 1200 pixel-height monitor, and using my Firefox 3.6.28 browser).
All I expect from the embedded display with the message is a preview quality image that lets me get a rough idea of what it is, and allows me to read the text.
I get it. You want to read the post text simultaneously. Sounds like you might have preferred the previous arrangement, then (with a maximum 940 pixel-size view, and nice big post-text). (Personally), I much prefer the newer in-post image viewer (for the various reasons explained).
It appears as if the new image display tool, accessed by clicking on the image displayed in a message, might be quite suitable for close inspection, though not as versatile as moving the image to an editor were things like an histogram are available too.
DM...
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 months ago | 9 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 3 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 5 days ago | |||
| 5 days ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 5 days ago | |||
| 5 days ago | |||
| 5 days ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 2 | ||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 3 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
