 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just a small note, is anyone else here annoyed
by images that don't fit on the screen? I'm running
at 1024x768, which I had considered plenty, except
that many entries in the IRTC still don't fit. Thoughts,
anyone?
...Chambers
PS. Not that the images are bad, but the fact that I
have to scroll to see the whole thing detracts from
the quality of the image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:3a9f2a4e@news.povray.org...
> Just a small note, is anyone else here annoyed
> by images that don't fit on the screen? I'm running
> at 1024x768, which I had considered plenty, except
> that many entries in the IRTC still don't fit. Thoughts,
> anyone?
>
Well, if you use winvote this isn't a problem since it will re-scale them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers wrote:
>
> Just a small note, is anyone else here annoyed
> by images that don't fit on the screen? I'm running
> at 1024x768, which I had considered plenty, except
> that many entries in the IRTC still don't fit. Thoughts,
> anyone?
>
> ...Chambers
> PS. Not that the images are bad, but the fact that I
> have to scroll to see the whole thing detracts from
> the quality of the image.
I'm using IrfanView to view them and therefore can either scroll or view
it resized. In either case, the impression is not optimal and i can only
vote according to my impression :-)
On the other hand some very nice pictures are quite small in this round so
they don't look optimal either.
Maybe a size limit is not such a bad idea after all, because it would lead
to a more constant size and therefore easier comparison. Anyway i think
1024x768 would be better for the limit, because smaller screen resolutions
are already quite seldom.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Like Tom said, try WinVote. It will resize the image to fit your
screen. Unlike NASA, it really is faster, better and cheaper, but only
for Windows users.
WinVote's installation programs are available for
download from:
Main Program
http://members.home.net/bfranke2/pov/winvote.exe
Spelling Dictionary (optional)
http://members.home.net/bfranke2/pov/speller.exe
on web page http://www.geocities.com/bob_franke/pov/winvote.htm
email me at bfr### [at] homecom if you need help.
-Bob
Ben Chambers wrote:
> Just a small note, is anyone else here annoyed
> by images that don't fit on the screen? I'm running
> at 1024x768, which I had considered plenty, except
> that many entries in the IRTC still don't fit. Thoughts,
> anyone?
>
> ...Chambers
> PS. Not that the images are bad, but the fact that I
> have to scroll to see the whole thing detracts from
> the quality of the image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thinking about it, to a certain extent I'd agree with the orig. poster. I
thought that the removal of the restriction was about allowing submissions
with odd proportions, rather than an encouragment to upload larger and
larger pics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It should remain the artist's choice as long as total file size is
regarded. Computer graphics are not paintings and don't function as
such. For many, scrolling is a natural extension of viewing with a
monitor. Our relationship to images changes.
Ben Chambers wrote:
> Just a small note, is anyone else here annoyed
> by images that don't fit on the screen? I'm running
> at 1024x768, which I had considered plenty, except
> that many entries in the IRTC still don't fit. Thoughts,
> anyone?
>
> ...Chambers
> PS. Not that the images are bad, but the fact that I
> have to scroll to see the whole thing detracts from
> the quality of the image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers wrote:
>
> Just a small note, is anyone else here annoyed
> by images that don't fit on the screen?
It diminishes viewing conditions, either when
they're too small or too big.
> I'm running
> at 1024x768, which I had considered plenty, except
> that many entries in the IRTC still don't fit. Thoughts,
> anyone?
Is there some place on the net figures are published
about such matters? Is the repartition curve sharp?
1024x768 is still widely used around me (myself, under
Windows, included), but I more and more see 1280x1024
or similar sizes (I spend all my time under Linux in a
custom 1200x900 mode... since my Iiyama monitor _has_
1200x900 pixels, physically).
> PS. Not that the images are bad, but the fact that I
> have to scroll to see the whole thing detracts from
> the quality of the image.
The difficulty to define a standard size made the admin
team remove the restriction. Artists are responsible
to choose an "good" size. It's part of their work. If
more and more artists submit at higher resolutions than
yours, perhaps it's time to follow them?
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr
http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Adrien Beau wrote in message <3AA2850B.C8663BD9@free.fr>...
>Is there some place on the net figures are published
>about such matters? Is the repartition curve sharp?
>1024x768 is still widely used around me (myself, under
>Windows, included), but I more and more see 1280x1024
>or similar sizes (I spend all my time under Linux in a
>custom 1200x900 mode... since my Iiyama monitor _has_
>1200x900 pixels, physically).
From the POV-Ray stuff page on my website (out of 596 viewers):
800x600 33.49%
1024x768 28.18%
1152x864 14.03%
1152x768 12.13%
1280x1024 11.78%
1280x960 0.13%
24 0.04%
1024x721 0.22%
From the main page (out of 366 viewers):
1024x768 58.98%
800x600 35.01%
1152x864 3.14%
1280x1024 2.88%
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
