This approach is the wrong way round really. 

The ideal size across the diagonal for a picture should be about half
the viewing distance. The recommended viewing distance for a computer
screen is about 30 inches (75cm). So the maximum size of your picture
should be about 15 inches (37cm) across the diagonal. This size means
you can take in the whole picture from the viewing distance without
having to 'scan' across it with your eyes (or scroll with your
viewer), but the picture is not so small that you start to lose
details and have to strain.

So your picture (in 135 format) should be about 16x24" (40x60cm) for
this viewing distance.

Assuming 90 dots per inch resolution and a 1:1 mapping, your picture
should be 1440x2160 = 31 megabytes.

That rules out almost all monitors and line speeds for optimum
viewing. For optimum viewing therefore you need to decide for yourself
what is the target screen size and resolution, and make the largest
picture you can that fits, allowing the audience to take in the whole
thing without scanning or scrolling. The audience will just have to
lean a bit closer to appreciate the fine detail of the picture.

My display is a 1600x1200 15" LCD. I typically restrict the pictures I
post to 800 pixels on the long edge, simply out of convention,
convenience and politeness. If I have to scroll to see the whole
picture I jump ship pdq. 

--
 Bob
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Sent: 04 April 2007 06:15
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size & Resolution
> 
> My workstation screen is a Cinema Display 23", native resolution  
> 1920x1200 pixels.
> My laptop screen is a cinema format 15", native resolution 1290x960

> pixels.
> I run them at the native resolution.
> 
> Which is mostly irrelevant. I can see quite a large image on screen,

> even in a browser window, without scaling or scrolling, and I can  
> always have the display scale as required.
> 
> However, a lot of people can't do that, and scaling imposes its  
> limitations on image quality. So, unlike some other people who  
> consider themselves and their screen the center of the universe, I  
> build my standard web page displays to look good on a 1024x768 pixel

> display so that many people can enjoy what I show. That implies,  
> after extensive testing and querying people on all kinds of 
> different  
> systems, that my standard web images now are rendered to a 
> maximum of  
> 594 pixels tall and a maximum of 794 pixels wide. That allows just  
> enough room in  typical browser window on that size screen to 
> display  
> the whole image without scrolling and with a little room left over,

> possibly, for captioning and controls. It's tight on 
> 1024x768. And it  
> still images nicely on my 23" display without scaling.
> 
> And I provide a larger size optional rendering for my pictures at  
> 1000 pixels vertical dimension, leaving the horizontal to run to  
> whatever size it ought to be without going past 1800 pixels, for  
> those with display capabilities that can view at that resolution.
> 
> Whenever I have to scroll around to see pictures, it becomes 
> tiresome  
> and I rapidly move on to the next thing on my agenda. The magic of  
> the image is lost that way.
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> 
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:01 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> > Since there has been a rather interesting and lively discussion in

> > a couple
> > of other threads discussing computer screen size and 
> resolution, it  
> > may be
> > time to poll the topic again.
> >
> > 1)  What size screen do you use
> >
> > 2)  What resolution do you prefer?
> >
> > 3)  What's the largest size image that you can see on your screen

> > without
> > undue scrolling?  This would have to take into consideration real

> > estate
> > eaten up by the browser.
> >
> > 4)  What minimum/maximum size images do you prefer to look at?
> >
> > 5)  If you had to scroll to see an entire image, would you be less

> > inclined
> > to view additional images from that poster?
> >


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Reply via email to