Resolution Of Screenshots

[dave_a_e]

I like the different sections with all of the screenshots but they seem to be in wildly different sizes. For example, the true resolution of BBC screens is 320 x 256. However, in the section here, the screens are 1200 x 783 which does not scale down to the original resolution. The same is true for the Amstrad and C64 versions. It would be better to keep screens as *exact replicas* from the start. Having produced loads of 8-bit stuff over the years, I know how easily this can become a headache if you want to resize images in the future. Anyone got any thoughts on this?

[Spider]

That's partly my fault.

 

I did try them at their original resolutio but they looked so tiny. So I had them about double size (which is usually the emulator window size I use)

 

I used infranview to mass change (from .bmp to .png and resize) although I may of got carried away a bit. Its an interesting thought though. They are resized here if they are too large (I think I set it at 512x512) but clicking the image opens the lightbox to view at uploaded size.

 

Not sure what to suggest really about this. I do think you're right though. :) But at the same time 'postage stamp' size images are a bit offputting. I guess I could set the thumb size at say 256x256 so they would appear 'reasonably normal' but cicking would show an 'expanded / zoomed' image ?

[dave_a_e]

Yes, I use Irfanview as well with all my images. Usually what I do is grab everything at natural resolution and then double the resolution for a web page, and create a thumbnail version at 162 width (Don't ask me why, that just seems to be a magic number). Then you have one image you know is always going to be the same width (162px), one which is the actual resolution and one finally that's formatted for the web.

 

One thing I find with Irfanview is that if making a *smaller* image, you get a better quality image with the 'Resample' turned ON, However, if making it bigger (i.e, doubling it), the same function must be turned 'OFF' or else it applies filters and stuff to the doubled image (meaning you can't halve it back to the original again).

[Spider]

I'll rebuild them at 256x256 let me know what you think. :) I had them at 512x512 previously.

 

It will still display them at 'uploaded' size upon click, well more or less afaik it will limit them to 1600x1200 if there were larger than that originally.

[jgharston]

I like the different sections with all of the screenshots but they seem to be in wildly different sizes. For example, the true resolution of BBC screens is 320 x 256. However, in the section here, the screens are 1200 x 783 which does not scale down to the original resolution. The same is true for the Amstrad and C64 versions. It would be better to keep screens as *exact replicas* from the start. Having produced loads of 8-bit stuff over the years, I know how easily this can become a headache if you want to resize images in the future. Anyone got any thoughts on this?

It depends on what you are showing. In general I scale to an exact whole multiple of the source screen size. With the BBC almost always shown with no border, and with standard hardware the border colour is unchangeable. With the Spectrum sometimes with the border, sometimes without, depending on if showing the border makes sense.

 

So:

BBC: 640x512 (80x32 chars) or 320x256 (40x32 chars) (eg http://mdfs.net/Apps/Graphics/Conversion/BMPSamples

Spectrum, no border: 512x384 (32x24chars) or 256x192 32x24 chars (eg http://mdfs.net/Software/JSW/Editors/JGH

Spectrum, border: 576x448 (32x24chars with 2-char border) or 288x224 (eg http://mdfs.net/Software/BBCBasic/Spectrum/Screen.htm

Spectrum, special case: JSW screens: 256x136 (32x17chars) (eg http://mdfs.net/Software/JSW/JGH/Screens/Room063

 

Always exactly 1x or exactly 2x source screen bitmap size.

Edited September 21, 2014 by jgharston