DSLRUsers.com

In contrast to the lush green of Craig's recent farmland panorama, here is the view from my hill this afternoon, everything dried to a crisp by the continuing 40 degree weather around Tamworth.
This one was with the 30mm Sigma in landscape format, 5 images stitched together in Hugin.
Resized to 1600 pixels across to fit on my screen, and I assume others use 1680pixel screen width too?

OK, maybe I'll run a poll, since panoramas are so popular lately . I know I havent listed every possible width, so just put your vote in the closest resolution in pixels.




Gordon

Gordon wrote:Resized to 1600 pixels across to fit on my screen, and I assume others use 1680pixel screen width too?

Why would you assume such an ex-treme resolution is the norm? I, for one, am still stuck on 1024x768, so the impact of this picture (which seems to be a really good one) is unfortunately lost on me.

There's a couple of threads on recommended picture widths - I think you'll find the best width is no more than 800wide. Suggest you have a read of the first couple of threads in the image reviews section - this one in particular: http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=2789&start=0
If the pic needs to be seen bigger than this then follow the instructions on linking a smaller version to the bigger original.

On your pic, it does look good, although I'd love to see all of it at once instead of having to scroll Where is it? What technique did you use?

sheepie wrote:Why would you assume such an ex-treme resolution is the norm? I, for one, am still stuck on 1024x768, so the impact of this picture (which seems to be a really good one) is unfortunately lost on me.

Leon,

Gordon wasn't saying that many others (or a lot of others) use that width, but merely that some others might. I do on my laptop, which is a widescreen, but I do not on my desktop, which has dual monitors.

That said, Gordon, Leon is quite correct in pointing out to you that the widest dimension used for posting here should not be greater than 800, as it stretches the panel width (within which the image is displayed) beyond an acceptable (for most people) width.

Finally, we still live in Australia, the land of sweeping plains, sleeping ISPs, and pc users who are frequently too cheap to see the value of upgrading their 10 year old hardware running Win 95 on a 12" monitor, because it "still works. Sometimes."

I cannot for the life of me understand why some people refuse to see the benefits - if nothing else, to their health - in upgrading their hardware, but in the last four days, I've two people ask me about their aging, ancient, failing systems, in the hope that I'll be able to keep them on life support.

So, no, it's not at all safe to presume that many users are using modern hardware that supports those resolutions, and in fact it's equally incorrect to presume that they will have a half decent connection.

i can feel the heat in ur picture

i run at 1280

Gordon,

I really like this shot, infact as you mentioned it's a great contrast to the lush green in my recent pano.

On my machines I use a series of different resolutions from 800 - 1280 depending on the machine and display. If I had my dual screens working currently it would be even bigger.

gstark wrote:Leon,

Gordon wasn't saying that many others (or a lot of others) use that width, but merely that some others might. I do on my laptop, which is a widescreen, but I do not on my desktop, which has dual monitors.

You're quite right, and on reading this a second time I must apologise to Gordon for being a little harsh - so unlike me
It is however ex-tremely difficult to see follow this thread though now that there is a bit of text in it - I think I'm getting RSI from scrolling left to right with the mouse - so I hope the message of 800 wide as a guideline gets through

sheepie wrote:

gstark wrote:Leon,

Gordon wasn't saying that many others (or a lot of others) use that width, but merely that some others might. I do on my laptop, which is a widescreen, but I do not on my desktop, which has dual monitors.

You're quite right, and on reading this a second time I must apologise to Gordon for being a little harsh - so unlike me
It is however ex-tremely difficult to see follow this thread though now that there is a bit of text in it - I think I'm getting RSI from scrolling left to right with the mouse - so I hope the message of 800 wide as a guideline gets through

Exactly why we strongly recommend the 800 pixel width as a maximum.

What a stunning panorama! I'm running 1920x1200 and it's almost wide enough to fit the screen

this is a great pano.
only looking on my notebook so I have to scroll across but it is a well executed pano.

Steve

thaddeus wrote:What a stunning panorama! I'm running 1920x1200 and it's almost wide enough to fit the screen

Lucky bastard. 23" Cinema...
(here I am with my 17" Studio and 20" Cinema and spoilt with full Adobe RGB working space )

I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains...

Great pic & well worth the scroll.

Gordon - I am running 1600x1200 on a 20" LCD and can see the whole panaroma, which is excellent

Thanks for the comments all.
Yes I do recall the 800 pixels wide recommended max width, but that would make the pano only 154 pixels high, which would make it a bit small to have much impact. So I ran the poll. The original is about 9660 X 1850, just as well I didnt post that
It seems that at least 75% of peeple are running >1024 pixel resolution, so I'd have thought the minimum could safely be made 1000 pixels wide, maybe it would encourange those running Win 3.1 at 800X600 65K colours to upgrade

And apart from that, a decent browser such as Firefox WILL let you see the whole image fitted to your screen width, it gives you a little + sign for a cursor, so that you can enlarge it to its actual size if that is larger than your screen resolution vertically or horizontally.

Its taken from my hilltop here at Loomberah, Tamworth being 30km away behind the trees near the left side. Hand held, you really dont need special pano tridpo heads with the excellent software available these days, just make sure you have sufficient overlap, and use manual metering (and the same exposure for all images) if you want a seemless result. Also important for seemlessness (if there is such a word!) is even illumination across your frame, so I use the vignette control in NC, as there is almost always some fall off around the edges. You can check this by taking a photo of an evenly lit grey card and examining the levels. I also have the grid lines turned on on the D70 to help with spacing my overlaps and horizon lines etc.

Gordon

Hey very nice pic.
Im 1440x900 and it looks great.
i really have to get back down to Tamworth and get some panos (last time didnt work as well with my Fuji S7000.
Anyway top shot Gordon
LIVE4EVA

Gordon wrote:Thanks for the comments all.
Yes I do recall the 800 pixels wide recommended max width, but that would make the pano only 154 pixels high, which would make it a bit small to have much impact. So I ran the poll. The original is about 9660 X 1850, just as well I didnt post that
It seems that at least 75% of peeple are running >1024 pixel resolution, so I'd have thought the minimum could safely be made 1000 pixels wide, maybe it would encourange those running Win 3.1 at 800X600 65K colours to upgrade

And apart from that, a decent browser such as Firefox WILL let you see the whole image fitted to your screen width, it gives you a little + sign for a cursor, so that you can enlarge it to its actual size if that is larger than your screen resolution vertically or horizontally.

Gordon

I use Firefox - current release version. For me it does NOT fit it to the screen like you suggest, nor does it give me the magic plus sign you refer to. The only time I've ever seen a resized and zoomable image is when I'm viewing the image alone in it's own separate window. I'd agree with your comments re: the majority - my guess is the average user has 1280 or less. That said you also have to remember that pixel real estate is also used for other areas of the page to the left of your image for the poster profile area and I guess that's where the max 800 rule comes from. The real problem with posting wide images in the thread is the constant scrolling required to read the responses people have made and this is a major PITA. Set you screen to 1280 wide and try reading this thread and you'll get a feel for what I mean. I understand your concern that the wonderful panorama is lost if viewed too small, but I'd suggest the best compromise is to post a small thumbnail with a link to a larger version in all it's glory. I know in my case that when I open a post with a really wide image I just close the item immediately without looking at it since I'm too lazy to scroll constantly from side to side to read through the thread. In such a case your pano doesn't get seen at all at any size

Gordon,

I like this panorama.

You mention that the image will lose its impact if it is sized at 800 pixels. I think that the image also loses its impact if it runs of the screen.

Cheers

stubbsy wrote:I use Firefox - current release version. For me it does NOT fit it to the screen like you suggest, nor does it give me the magic plus sign you refer to. The only time I've ever seen a resized and zoomable image is when I'm viewing the image alone in it's own separate window.

You are correct but there is a very easy work-around in FF, right click "view image", the image can then be resized.

Cheers,

Why not just append " - WIDESCREEN" to the subject line just as people do for dialup warnings?

That way, those of us with pleny of screen real estate can use it, and those without can skip the thread if they wish

I run 1280 x 1024 at work and home, but sometimes I am on 1024 x 768 (laptop screens). Agree that the panos sometimes need a more generous width as you don't get a lot of height by cropping to 800px wide... but at the same time, reading threads that scroll across 2 screens is a pain too

My rule of thumb is to crop to 800px width for display on screen, but provide a link to a larger image if necessary.

I used to run dual 1600 x 1200 screens on 2 19" CRTs. Can't believe how I did that now, it'd just be too painful to view for me. IMO 1280 x 1024 on a 17" LCD is about right for me.

I need to get a new screen Still using the same 19" CRT from 5 years ago....

Gordon,

Gordon wrote:but that would make the pano only 154 pixels high, which would make it a bit small to have much impact.

But you could use that as your thumbnail, with an embedded link to a larger version for those who are interested. I think that Leek has posted a tutorial on how to do that, and that might be one way to circumvent the problem.

It seems that at least 75% of peeple are running >1024 pixel resolution,

That could be one interpretation.

But you don't have any poll options for lower resolutions, so you've possibly (probably) excluded a lot of members, as might be evidenced by the fact that there are only 24 respondents to the poll.

About the only statement I would make from the poll (at this time) is that x% of the respondents use a larger resolution, and given that we have over 1600 members, and maybe 600 active members, I'm not yet convinced that 24 respondents is a valid sample.

maybe it would encourange those running Win 3.1 at 800X600 65K colours to upgrade

In the main, they're beyond help.

And apart from that, a decent browser such as Firefox WILL let you see the whole image fitted to your screen width, it gives you a little + sign for a cursor, so that you can enlarge it to its actual size if that is larger than your screen resolution vertically or horizontally.

I'm using Firefox, but I'm not seeing that behaviour. I had a look through my settings, and couldn't see a way of implementing that behaviour, so could you please elaborate on this for us?


Thanx for the insight into the technique that you used. I'm sure that many here will find that useful; I certainly agree with all of what you've said, and in particular your observations regarding using manual exposure.

thaddeus wrote:Why not just append " - WIDESCREEN" to the subject line just as people do for dialup warnings?

That way, those of us with pleny of screen real estate can use it, and those without can skip the thread if they wish

Not a bad suggestion, but I think that Stubbsy's suggestion - that I also refer to - where the original poster drops a linked thumbnail into the thread, and the link takes you to a full sized image, is perhaps a better option, as I think that it covers all of the bases.

posting @800 wide with a link to wider makes the most sense to me.

This will cover all bases.

For instance we may have you beaut widescreen capable monitors at home but may wish to browse the forums at work or similar.

lots of places running crt monitors have 800x600 or 1024x768 as the desktop size.

Steve

stubbsy wrote:I use Firefox - current release version. For me it does NOT fit it to the screen like you suggest, nor does it give me the magic plus sign you refer to. The only time I've ever seen a resized and zoomable image is when I'm viewing the image alone in it's own separate window.

It seems I've stirred things up a bit
I guess theres no chance a text wrap at 800pixels scheme can be implemented in dslrusers.com?

right click "view image" but that doesnt solve the problem of the wide text... so all future panoramas from me will be 800 pixels wide, anything to stop the complaints! I guess I'll start hearing from those running 256 colours at 640X480 then!

Gordon

Gordon wrote: I guess I'll start hearing from those running 256 colours at 640X480 then!
Gordon

Well so far the 256 640x480 have been amazingly quiet, so if you stick to 800 I'm sure you'll here no complaints.

gstark wrote:
But you could use that as your thumbnail, with an embedded link to a larger version for those who are interested. I think that Leek has posted a tutorial on how to do that, and that might be one way to circumvent the problem.


>>>It seems that at least 75% of peeple are running >1024 pixel resolution, ...

That could be one interpretation.

But you don't have any poll options for lower resolutions, so you've possibly (probably) excluded a lot of members, as might be evidenced by the fact that there are only 24 respondents to the poll.

Thanx for the insight into the technique that you used. I'm sure that many here will find that useful; I certainly agree with all of what you've said, and in particular your observations regarding using manual exposure.

OK, I'll make an 800 pixel wide version and edit it back in!


I went back to edit in some smaller size options on the poll, but couldnt see how to do that.

Theres nothing like small number stats to prove a point

Gordon

Gordon wrote:So all future panoramas from me will be 800 pixels wide, anything to stop the complaints! I guess I'll start hearing from those running 256 colours at 640X480 then! Gordon

Hey Gordon, why don't you rotate your pano 90 degrees and then people can turn their head on one side and scroll up and down instead... and it won't stuff up people's screens

Seriously though I don't see the problem with linking to a larger version from an image that is 800 wide... it's pretty easy to do...

John, I'm way ahead of you, I turn my monitor on the side and scroll up and down.

Gordon,

Gordon wrote:OK, I'll make an 800 pixel wide version and edit it back in!

Doesn't that make you feel better?

Don't you agree that it all does look somewhat more coherent? I think it's certainly much more readable now.

I've just added an extra poll option now, for widths less than 1024.