800pix wide max? Used to be 1024pix...

Discussion in 'Site and Forum Feedback' started by mtbdudex, Aug 2, 2014.

  1. mtbdudex macrumors 68000

    mtbdudex

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    #1
    In my memory used to be 1024pix wide was max we could post here, when did it change to 800pix wide?

    Seems backwards in this day and age of faster internet/etc.....
     
  2. needfx macrumors 68040

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #2
    and larger screens I might add
     
  3. Cheese&Apple macrumors 68000

    Cheese&Apple

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #3
    I'll jump on this bandwagon.

    If I remember correctly it was late 2012 or early 2013 and was a huge disappointment. There was a brief backlash but then everyone moved on.

    I agree that 800 wide max is ridiculous. People work hard to capture the best image possible and are proud of their work. Viewing photographs this way doesn't do them the justice they deserve.

    I hope these thoughts gain momentum and someone at MacRumors is paying attention. After all, other than this one problem, it is a great community and one that I'm very reluctant to leave.

    ~ Peter
     
  4. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #4
    Why care? Post a link to a full resolution image.

    I suspect they cut it down based on data they have of what users do. Many people when they see a page is loading slow will cancel it. They loose the page views
     
  5. TheReef, Aug 2, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2014

    TheReef macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #5
    ^This sums it up perfectly, MR please take note :)


    I agree it looked way better scrolling through 1024px wide images, this was one of the appealing things about POTD.

    I've just updated the Safari auto thumbnail extension to fix this (please note it's an experimental build, and is hard for me to properly test on a slow connection)

    Extension:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0sVvxe1rowKdzZmLWxpcU1EUFU/edit?usp=sharing

    If anybody wants to do the Firefox and Chrome extensions let me know, I do not have the time unfortunately.

    Here is a link to the thread about the extension.
     
  6. mtbdudex thread starter macrumors 68000

    mtbdudex

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    #6
    I "reported" this post to the Mods with this note:
     
  7. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #7
    800px wide is the norm here at MacRumors because anything wider messes up with the formatting of the thread, it has nothing to do with being iPhone centric or using mobile platforms.
     
  8. TheReef macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #8
    How so? Do you mean that one post appears slightly wider than the others?

    I think there is a good case for wider images especially in the photography forum.

    I haven't used vBulletin before but a quick googling reveals things about conditionals, specifically conditional template inclusions in vBulletin, which in theory could perhaps allow the inclusion of the simple css rule: max-width: 1024px; for just the photography forum?

    http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=242639
     
  9. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #9
    Yes, it impacts the formatting, to a degree that interferes with normal usage. I'd also say that its occur more then "slightly".
     
  10. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #10
    Even with FluidHD enabled?
     
  11. Cheese&Apple macrumors 68000

    Cheese&Apple

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #11
    True Chris however, posting a link to a larger image requires action from the viewer. Every time you ask the viewer to does this or do that - click here or click there...I believe it detracts from the viewing experience.

    Thanks for the info Mike. I really don't know what goes on behind what I see on my screen and across the internet but...is it possible for 1024px to be the site-wide norm?

    I don't know, maybe I'm spoiled by high resolution displays and high speed connections.
     
  12. mtbdudex thread starter macrumors 68000

    mtbdudex

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    #12
    So is this a closed subject or will we see possible going back to 1024 pix wide?
     
  13. OllyW, Aug 11, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2014

    OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #13
    There seems to be a little bit of confusion about this.

    Generally we allow images up to 800 pixels wide but in picture threads you can post images up to 1024 pixels wide.

    These are threads in the Picture Gallery forum or Digital Photography forum and threads of the "Post your desktop" or "Post a photo of ______" variety.

    Images in all other forums and non-picture threads should be kept to a maximum of 800 pixels wide. You can use TIMG tags for larger images and the forum software will automatically reduce the image size. Users can click the image to display the full-sized version.
     
  14. mtbdudex, Aug 12, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2014

    mtbdudex thread starter macrumors 68000

    mtbdudex

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    #14
    ^^^ then your forum software is not allowing it or a setting is toggled wrong by mistake.
    See below, I used to be able to post here and specify picture size simply by the "s800" or "s1024" or sXXX, the XXX being the pix width desired up to 1024 wide

    I post 95% in the Digital Photography forum, it's one of my hobbies besides Home Theater and other "stuff".

    Test of photo at 512 pix via "https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8LFIEU2a4eY/U-Q3eYYiJ6I/AAAAAAAASa8/HCibQMycwTY/s512/Aug-7-2014%2520Star%2520Trails.jpg":
    [​IMG]


    Test of photo at 640 pix via "https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8LFIEU2a4eY/U-Q3eYYiJ6I/AAAAAAAASa8/HCibQMycwTY/s640/Aug-7-2014%2520Star%2520Trails.jpg":
    [​IMG]

    Test of photo at 800 pix via "https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8LFIEU2a4eY/U-Q3eYYiJ6I/AAAAAAAASa8/HCibQMycwTY/s800/Aug-7-2014%2520Star%2520Trails.jpg":
    [​IMG]

    Test of photo at 1024 pix via "https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8LFIEU2a4eY/U-Q3eYYiJ6I/AAAAAAAASa8/HCibQMycwTY/s1024/Aug-7-2014%2520Star%2520Trails.jpg":
    [​IMG]

    It won't allow any wider than 800pix wide, hence my original post.
    The post area is boxed in by a frame, and you have that width constrained......so that's why?
    IS that for a clean white sheet look or future advertising strategy or?

    My other forums, like Canon POTN, http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1392239, or AVS forum for Home Theatre http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/989861-envelope-home-theatre-2014-mike-r-mtbdudex-diy-11-3-audio-2-35-scope-130in-screen.html they do not limit the post area via framing.

    For reference, Canon POTN I believe has a limit of 1600 pix wide (I was wrong, 1280 pix wide)
    http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51022
     
  15. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #15
    Ok, now I understand. We haven't changed any policies so it's probably down to an incorrect setting.

    I'll pass this on to the site admins.
     
  16. TheReef macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #16
    Terrific, thanks! :)
     
  17. mtbdudex thread starter macrumors 68000

    mtbdudex

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    #17
    perfect, once they "fix" or correct it lets confirm in this thread before going public
     
  18. mtbdudex thread starter macrumors 68000

    mtbdudex

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    #18
    any progress to report on 1024pix wide posting??
     
  19. arn macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #19
    so, pretty sure this wasn't changed recently.

    So, ya the reason it's 800 max-width in css is it breaks the formatting otherwise. See below.

    1024 vs 800
     

    Attached Files:

    • 1024.jpg
      1024.jpg
      File size:
      970 KB
      Views:
      95
    • 800.jpg
      800.jpg
      File size:
      771.9 KB
      Views:
      80
  20. TheReef, Apr 6, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2015

    TheReef macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #20
    Hi arn,

    The photography forum has attracted a great bunch of individuals and over the years a great community has developed thanks to your forum. The experience for the community would be significantly enhanced if image sizes were larger and people's work be given the opportunity to appear in the 1024px format.

    I can see the issue you highlight. It appears as though this occurs when in "Fixed" layout mode but not on "Fluid" layout.

    Therefore, is it possible to apply the following CSS rule for "Fluid" layouts only?
    (See attached images for before and after whilst in Fluid layout, in the second screenshot please note the consistent width)

    Best regards,
    TheReef
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page