Can we discuss the 800 pixel limit for posting images?

[groundloop]

I can understand why this limit was put in place quite a while ago when people might have been bandwidth challenged or had limitations with their computer monitor. IMO those days are gone and I personally don't see a reason for such a small image limitation. Is it possible for us to up the limit on image sizes posted here, even 1200 pixels on a side would be a big improvement in image quality.

thanks

[Major Nikon]

1. I think we discussed it some time back and it didn't go anywhere

Some are either ignoring the requirement or are unaware, which I think is fine.

[groundloop]

2. that must have been quite some time ago....

I don't remember that discussion from the 3 or 4 years I've been here, although I suppose I could have missed it.

[Major Nikon]

4. Feb 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1036&pid=14273

[groundloop]

5. huh.... somehow I totally forgot about that...

Anyway, to me it seems like cutting an image down to 800 pixels and then zooming so that it fills my monitor make for a pretty poor quality of displayed image. I know most photo forums have a much larger size limit anymore.

[NV Whino]

3. I honestly don't even think about it any more

I struggled to meet the requirement for a while. Then someone suggested I let Photobucket do the work. So that's what I do now. I upload whatever size to PB, let it resize, and then simply link to DU. Quality is acceptable for a jpg.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. That's what I do, too.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. I do that too.

[alfredo]

8. Here's a 1200X900. See if it screws up the page formatting.

It doesn't in Chrome.


900X1200 would mean scrolling to see the whole image.

[Adsos Letter]

9. The wonderdog fits perfectly at 1200x900

but yeah, 900x1200 is a bummer. There have been a few times when I wanted to post something not in a landscape format, but didn't because scrolling sort of took the intended effect away.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[alfredo]

11. I think another issue is bandwidth. Are we putting more

Burden on DU's servers?

[ManiacJoe]

14. No burden on DU's servers.

DU servers never see the image.

The burden is on the low-bandwidth connection folks have. Contrary to popular belief, most folks in the USA do not have high-bandwidth connection to the internet.

[alfredo]

15. I am at the low end of high bandwidth at 3mb. We shouldn't have ceded control to

corporations.

[ManiacJoe]

13. Actually, that shot is 800x600.

[alfredo]

16. Inspect element says 1024X768 opened in new tab

[ManiacJoe]

17. Yes, the pic alone in a new tab is large.

Looks like DU is messing with images via the CSS file.

Edit:
Yes, the DU CSS file is resizing any large image down to 800 pixels.
In this case: 1,024px × 768px (scaled to 800px × 600px)

[alfredo]

18. So it has been decided, stay with 800X600. :)

[CC]

10. The size limitations are only

for the contests. Any other time you can post any size you want unless DU rules has a limit I am unaware of. As for the contest there were still people with smaller screens (and now tablets, phone etc.) and some with slower connections so each time we've revisited changing the sizes it ended up staying the same. It is kind of a keeping it manageable for least of us on DU so everyone could enjoy/participate that wants too. But it can always be discussed and see if a majority are for upping the sizes for contest.

[alfredo]

12. The 1200X900 is fine on my iPad. I don't know about phones.