Looking for a little advice for image size - GoFuckYourself.com

SmutHammer · 04-18-2014, 09:40 AM

I'm building a new HD site. For now I have decided to stick with video being 1080p 12000 Kbits/sec. What I'm not sure about is what to do with picture sizes, 1800x1200 just doesn't seem to cut it anymore and they don't fill the screen on most computers/devices. Quality wise I'm thinking around 5000 on the long side, but Making them fit most screens in landscape will make the portrait super skinny on a home computer...

Any suggestions and comments?

JimmyStephans · 04-18-2014, 09:48 AM

Ed, we are dealing with the same question here. We decided 4800 x 3200 (same aspect ratio as full-frame cameras) for downloads in ZIP files

We also made a "Tour Size" where members can click through the shots one after the other and its only 900x600.

Much of the software used these days to view image sets has that "fit to screen" feature where it resizes the view (zoom out) automatically so if big images can be viewed edge to edge.

I see you said 1080p at 12000. We tested that a bunch about 18 months ago and only a few fans out of hundreds helping us test could tell the difference in mp4/h-265 files rendered at 12,500, 10,000 or 8500 max. I'm going with 9000 and no complaints (faster downloads, less bandwidth, and for lower power members on older systems, less means faster / smoother read from disk.

SmutHammer · 04-18-2014, 10:05 AM

Nice response, to be honest I wasn't really expecting to get any answers like this with the way things have been on gfy lately

SmutHammer · 04-18-2014, 12:58 PM

No one else has an opinion on this?

Elli · 04-18-2014, 03:23 PM

I'm going to assume you are talking about photos. I've offered photos on my own site in 1024 and 3000 on the long side for a few years now. Honestly only a very few members ever download or even view the 3000 size. I'm more thinking about how to satisfy Retina screens going forward this year and into next now. Like you said, the 'stretch to fit' is automatic now, so lots of people don't even notice the various sizes, in my opinion.

romn · 04-21-2014, 05:14 PM

For Photos: I'd shoot for around 3000 x 2000. That's a good ballpark and what the big boys are averaging these days from my experience.

For Video: If you are using H.264 you should be able to lower the bit rate (use variable) quite a bit. I use handbrake and get amazing results in the 3000 kbps range.

Good luck and keep it looking pro!!

04-18-2014, 09:40 AM	#1
SmutHammer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,266	Looking for a little advice for image size I'm building a new HD site. For now I have decided to stick with video being 1080p 12000 Kbits/sec. What I'm not sure about is what to do with picture sizes, 1800x1200 just doesn't seem to cut it anymore and they don't fill the screen on most computers/devices. Quality wise I'm thinking around 5000 on the long side, but Making them fit most screens in landscape will make the portrait super skinny on a home computer... Any suggestions and comments?

04-18-2014, 09:48 AM	#2
JimmyStephans Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Littleton, Colorado. USA Posts: 560	Ed, we are dealing with the same question here. We decided 4800 x 3200 (same aspect ratio as full-frame cameras) for downloads in ZIP files We also made a "Tour Size" where members can click through the shots one after the other and its only 900x600. Much of the software used these days to view image sets has that "fit to screen" feature where it resizes the view (zoom out) automatically so if big images can be viewed edge to edge. I see you said 1080p at 12000. We tested that a bunch about 18 months ago and only a few fans out of hundreds helping us test could tell the difference in mp4/h-265 files rendered at 12,500, 10,000 or 8500 max. I'm going with 9000 and no complaints (faster downloads, less bandwidth, and for lower power members on older systems, less means faster / smoother read from disk. __________________ http://TrueBabes.com/

04-18-2014, 03:23 PM	#5
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	I'm going to assume you are talking about photos. I've offered photos on my own site in 1024 and 3000 on the long side for a few years now. Honestly only a very few members ever download or even view the 3000 size. I'm more thinking about how to satisfy Retina screens going forward this year and into next now. Like you said, the 'stretch to fit' is automatic now, so lots of people don't even notice the various sizes, in my opinion. __________________ email: [email protected]

04-18-2014, 10:05 AM	#3
SmutHammer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,266	Nice response, to be honest I wasn't really expecting to get any answers like this with the way things have been on gfy lately

04-18-2014, 12:58 PM	#4
SmutHammer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,266	No one else has an opinion on this?

04-21-2014, 05:14 PM	#6
romn Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 41	For Photos: I'd shoot for around 3000 x 2000. That's a good ballpark and what the big boys are averaging these days from my experience. For Video: If you are using H.264 you should be able to lower the bit rate (use variable) quite a bit. I use handbrake and get amazing results in the 3000 kbps range. Good luck and keep it looking pro!!