Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE CANUCKS NEWS > Suggestions & Feedback
Reload this Page Larger review photos.
Mark Forums Read
Media Gallery Register Members List LAN Calendar Search Today's Posts

       
Reply
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old September 18, 2008, 01:42 PM
encorp's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,425

My System Specs

Default
I can't sit in front of them. I started to get severe headaches, I'm not normally one to complain, get sick or even get hurt. And I just cannot sit in front of a CRT Or even 20 feet from a tube TV without getting extremely ill, I even started getting migraines! It's why I paid over a thousand dollars many years ago for a 17" Sony LCD with 32ms response and a 300:1 contrast ratio LOL
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the immediately preceding post are those of encorp and do not reflect the views and/or opinions of family, friends, or anyone remotely associated with encorp unless explicitly stated. encorp does not make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the quality, factuality or use of information in the immediately preceding post.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old September 18, 2008, 01:42 PM
encorp's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,425

My System Specs

Default
Oh and like maybe 1° viewing angle lol! If I even reached over my desk to get a pen I couldn't see what was on the screen LOL!
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the immediately preceding post are those of encorp and do not reflect the views and/or opinions of family, friends, or anyone remotely associated with encorp unless explicitly stated. encorp does not make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the quality, factuality or use of information in the immediately preceding post.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old September 18, 2008, 03:29 PM
Eldonko's Avatar
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,363
Default
Im the same, my last job was still using them and it drove my eyes crazy. I thought I needed glasses and went to the eye doctor and my eyes are fine and then he asked if I sit in front of a crt for any long periods... I have 2x20 inch wides at my new job so Im pretty happy.
__________________
Donkeys kill more people annually than plane crashes or shark attacks.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old September 18, 2008, 03:32 PM
Menello's Avatar
Top Prospect
F@H
  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Posts: 81
Default
At MY old job, we used 17" eMacs.

Now... I'm unemployed
__________________
The box:
Mobo: eVGA NF66 nForce 650i Ultra SPP
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.03GHz
RAM: 1x2GB OCZ DDR2-800 PC2-6400
+ 2x2GB Crucial DDR2-800 PC2-6400
= 6GB RAM (finally more than 2GB!)
GPU: XFX GeForce9800GTX+
HDDs: 500 Seagate, 640 GB WD Caviar Black
PSU: CoolerMaster 600W
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old September 19, 2008, 09:45 AM
Spaceman-Spiff's Avatar
MVP
  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: burnaby.bc.ca
Posts: 355
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdrom17 View Post
I wouldn't mind if they zoomed in larger too. I'm sure your taking 5MP+ pictures so why not post say a 3MP picture or something? I realize bandwidth can get pricey however I think you can do better than 640x480. I'd say 1024x768 at least IMO.
Actually, 3 Megapixels is around 2048x1536. No one browses at that resolution...

IMO 1024x768 images are good enough. Heck, even 800x600 is good enough at most times. However, lately the reviews have been using 640x480 images.
Last edited by Spaceman-Spiff; September 19, 2008 at 09:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old September 19, 2008, 10:20 AM
Eldonko's Avatar
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,363
Default
Since Ive started reviewing the large photos have always been 640x480.
__________________
Donkeys kill more people annually than plane crashes or shark attacks.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old September 19, 2008, 12:14 PM
JD's Avatar
JD JD is offline
Moderator
F@H
  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,454

My System Specs

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceman-Spiff View Post
Actually, 3 Megapixels is around 2048x1536. No one browses at that resolution...

IMO 1024x768 images are good enough. Heck, even 800x600 is good enough at most times. However, lately the reviews have been using 640x480 images.
No but with 3MP you could effectively "zoom" in and actually see some details...

I think something like Newegg's photo gallery system would work well. Have the main small image, and allow the user to zoom in twice (or more) within the same window/frame/div whatever you want to call it and be able to drag the image around when zoomed in.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old September 19, 2008, 03:24 PM
Eldonko's Avatar
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,363
Default
I dont get what details you cant see. When there are details, we do macros. Like this for example:

__________________
Donkeys kill more people annually than plane crashes or shark attacks.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old September 19, 2008, 04:06 PM
3oh6's Avatar
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
  
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,052
Default
i am with Spaceman-Spiff, i wouldn't mind seeing 800px wide 6x4 ratio photos for the larger version myself. bandwidth requirements rule the roost though and the photo sizes we use now are plenty big enough, 800px wide would be just that much nicer to show off some of the incredible photos the reviewers here take though
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode