best pic size for forum

[383astro]

What is the best pic size to show on forums? I am trying to scan in my cards and upload some and wanted to make them perfect the first time.

 

[mrmopar]

I like too see cards in real size or maybe slightly larger. I think those thumbnails you have to click to enlarge or the giant shots are too small/too large.

 

[mmyers1978]

I can never get mine right. I always have them either as thumbnails, or the giant scans. I'd like to get them to actual size, but I'm not quite sure how to do that.

 

[gradedeflator]

I resize in photobucket and my non-slab scans are about 354x252 height and width

They are slightly smaller than actual size.

I guess i can experiment tomorrow and update this thread to at least provide measurements for folks

 

[gracecollector]

I scan all mine at 100%, 300 dpi, then resize to 72 dpi for web usage. Pixels should be 180x252 for a 2.5"x3.5" card. That's actual size of card.

 

[MisterT]

I just upload them and use the thumbnails that people can click on. That provides the best performance on the page as people only load the bigger pics if they want them. This also give a nice uniform size to the pics on the page. Reference my posts in the MT for what I mean.

 

[gradedeflator]

[MENTION=1845]gracecollector[/MENTION], the pixel size you give looks small to me (looking at the Grace Hometown Hero as an example). What is the resolution of your screen?

mine is 1366x768, and my resized photobucket images of 354x252 are small to my eyes, but they are bigger than your image sizes. Just curious if the computer screen resolution is also a variable.

 

[gracecollector]

Images optimized for the web are always 72 dots per inch. 72 x 2.5" = 180, 72 x 3.5" = 252. At 100% view, card should display at regular size. Of course, you may prefer a larger size. A 375x525 scan keeps the right aspect ratio, and gives a nice "larger" view.

Beckett's card gallery images are all standardized at 180x252.

If you are wanting to print your scans, 300 dpi is the general guideline. Pixels are then 750x1050.

 

[vwnut13]

Images optimized for the web are always 72 dots per inch. 72 x 2.5" = 180, 72 x 3.5" = 252. At 100% view, card should display at regular size. Of course, you may prefer a larger size. A 375x525 scan keeps the right aspect ratio, and gives a nice "larger" view.

Beckett's card gallery images are all standardized at 180x252.

If you are wanting to print your scans, 300 dpi is the general guideline. Pixels are then 750x1050.

72 PPI is a myth.

PPI doesn't matter when everyone has a different sized screen with different resolutions. You aren't going to get a 1:1 image unless you have a 72 PPI monitor.

The only benefit of having a 180x252 image is that it has a small file size. You are going to end up with a small, compressed image that lost a lot of detail.


On top of that, why would you want a 1:1 image. You probably sit around 2 feet from your monitor. Do you look at your baseball cards from 2 feet away?

 

[ChasHawk]

I crop everything to 400x280 and my scans usually display pretty well I think

 

[gracecollector]

72 PPI is a myth.

PPI doesn't matter when everyone has a different sized screen with different resolutions. You aren't going to get a 1:1 image unless you have a 72 PPI monitor.

The only benefit of having a 180x252 image is that it has a small file size. You are going to end up with a small, compressed image that lost a lot of detail.


On top of that, why would you want a 1:1 image. You probably sit around 2 feet from your monitor. Do you look at your baseball cards from 2 feet away?

Well, 72dpi is definitely not a myth. It's been the web defacto standard for years. There is some migration to 96dpi monitors, but 72dpi is still the defacto standard.

http://www.vsellis.com/understanding-dpi-resolution-and-print-vs-web-images/

I want smaller sized photos for quicker loading on my tablet and phone, and webpages with lots of scans.

File size is all about what you are going to do with the image. No one standard is right. More important is consistancy in your scans for a nice presentation.

 

[vwnut13]

Well, 72dpi is definitely not a myth. It's been the web defacto standard for years. There is some migration to 96dpi monitors, but 72dpi is still the defacto standard.

http://www.vsellis.com/understanding-dpi-resolution-and-print-vs-web-images/

I want smaller sized photos for quicker loading on my tablet and phone, and webpages with lots of scans.

File size is all about what you are going to do with the image. No one standard is right. More important is consistancy in your scans for a nice presentation.

DPI doesn't mean much unless you are printing.


The actual size that someone will see is dependant on the users output resolution, and the resolution of their monitor.

Get it to look how you want on your monitor, because you can't know how it will display on others.

 

[BunchOBull]

I'm a 640x452 kinda guy.

 

[gradedeflator]

I like this size--slightly bigger than mine.

But my oh my the thought of re-uploading ALL of my images seems rather daunting. the easy way would be to resize "up" my current PB images, but i imagine they will look worse...

I crop everything to 400x280 and my scans usually display pretty well I think

 

[383astro]

I like this size--slightly bigger than mine.

But my oh my the thought of re-uploading ALL of my images seems rather daunting. the easy way would be to resize "up" my current PB images, but i imagine they will look worse...

I am starting to scan my cards so I want to figure this out before I get too far in. I appreciate all the input guys. I didnt even think about all the different monitors. I was thinking of a standard size and it would just look the same on everyones screen, lol.