July 30 2007 Toronto

chiamattt: 20th Aug 2007 - 05:30 GMT

Your pictures are 650pixels wide. FOR SHAME!

Glad to see you posting again. These are great. I really like the first and second shots.

Be cool

chiamattt: 20th Aug 2007 - 06:43 GMT

Both of you have convinced me to post pictures at 645 pixels wide from now on. awesome! Thanks you two!!!

EvilGentleman: 20th Aug 2007 - 18:49 GMT

Shhhh, not so loud. Peter and Jamie might hear.

EvilGentleman: 20th Aug 2007 - 18:52 GMT

Oh, and if I remember correctly, the width of your photos was never an issue. It was the height. For the last year, I have been trying to keep my pictures' heights under 700 pixels as much as possible. Usually, I just make them 640x480 or 480x640.

Chiamattt: 20th Aug 2007 - 21:58 GMT

screw that! with this new and improved 645 width, my photo height shall be even more problematic!

EvilGentleman: 20th Aug 2007 - 23:27 GMT

Hmmmm.... Chiam, what if you just turned your pics sideways? Since you prefer shooting diagonally anyways, all we would have to do is tilt our heads to the left instead of the right (or was it the other way around?)

CE: 21st Aug 2007 - 05:45 GMT

You can make them more than 600 pixels? Hot Damn! No more small photos for me!

EvilGentleman: 21st Aug 2007 - 17:27 GMT

I always consider the 600 pixel size to be equivalent to a speed limit. If I keep it to 600 or less, I know I am safe. But if I go over, I run the risk of getting into hot water. If I go over a bit, I am probably not going to draw too much attention, but the more I go over, the more bandwidth I cost citynoise/saturn5 and thus the more likely I am to get warned and possibly even have articles deleted. The system will not allow more than 700, as far as I can tell, and anything over 650 screws up the side panels on my 1024x768 display.

In chiamattt's case, I would recommend staying at 600 pixels wide, unless he wants to break up his posts so that he has no more than 10-12 pictures per article. When you have 48 pics in a single post, a larger width means a lot more bandwidth usage. After a thousand views, that starts getting pretty expensive.

Don't forget, the little Google ads only cover a small portion of the costs of running citynoise. The rest is coming from the pockets of the editors, as a labour of love. The more bandwidth we burn, the more we cost them. And at 248 posts with over 1000 pictures, most of which are 640 pixels wide, and all of which are getting steadily viewed, I know I am an expensive user. The only reason I use that particular size is because the fastest way to resize my photos is with MS Picture Editor, and it has a 640x480 size in the drop-down menu. If there was a 600x450 setting, I would use that instead.

As it is, some visitors with dial-up connections probably have to avoid chiam's, hool's and my posts, due to the time it takes to load the pages. And some pages have lots of pictures in the comments, as well. This also causes problems with bandwidth.

Maybe I should be shrinking my pictures a bit, or perhaps it is time to send citynoise some cash, whenever I finally get some. Jamie, any luck with adding a PayPal donation link to the citynoise home page yet?

Editors: 22nd Aug 2007 - 13:39 GMT

well, we try to keep them around 600 to maximize the size while, of course, not going overboard on the bandwidth.

its ultimately up to the posters, however, to do what they like.

within reason ;)

EvilGentleman: 22nd Aug 2007 - 19:18 GMT

Thanks. I feel a little less guilty now. Now I can get off my goddamn soapbox. Whew!

chiamattt: 23rd Aug 2007 - 07:54 GMT

I will stay at 600px wide. I was just being a dick because im good at it