Do you like 'em big?! (file-size)

[Gruenspecht]

Whenever i am scanning magazines the question always arises in what size should i make the file to upload it and post it on here. In older threads you can occasionally see a notice about a file-size because back then the internet wasn't that fast as today. What do you folks prefer, small, medium, large or huge(about 5100x7000 pixels) files? I am not sure if the filehosts even support such large files. Most of the time i go for medium and/or large, depending on the photos, with the intension the downloader can choose if he/she wants to downsize it themselves.

[bowlinggreen]

It's all kind of relative. If you're talking about scans, scan quality has a big effect on whether or not it matters. And regardless, scans are all of less quality than the huge digital images put out by porn studios.

Big jpeg releases from studios are nice, but there's a limit. I don't want to have a multiple gigabyte image set stored that I will rarely look at. If you love the model and look at it a lot, that's different.

My monitor is 1920x1080, I'd wager a lot of us are using that res these days. Some will have larger monitors, while a few will have smaller ones. If you take 1920x1080 as a happy medium, and allow for a bit of zooming in on the tasty bits, and you can do that without getting too much blur and noise, I'd say you've reached the happy place.

[PAWGLover]

To me, it depends. If you can zoom in on an image and don't see all those little dots, no matter the size, bigger is better up to a point.

[Gruenspecht]

I should have specified about what i personally scan, sorry for that. My interest is softcore and pre-2000 stuff, the quality of the paper and prints of magazines from that era vary from magazine to magazine. I always scan in 600dpi with moiré reduction etc but the results of those scans are always a surprise if they come out nicely or not. My scanner is a Canon LiDE220.

[seany65]

I prefer pictures to be 1000 pixels tall, if the framing is vertical eg. if the person is stood up, but in that case the pic has to be cropped so that the face is big enough to see.

I don't like to see the original dots of the picture. I alkso don't like pictures so detailed that you can see almost inside the skin pores.

[seivad]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

It's all kind of relative. If you're talking about scans, scan quality has a big effect on whether or not it matters. And regardless, scans are all of less quality than the huge digital images put out by porn studios.

Big jpeg releases from studios are nice, but there's a limit. I don't want to have a multiple gigabyte image set stored that I will rarely look at. If you love the model and look at it a lot, that's different.

My monitor is 1920x1080, I'd wager a lot of us are using that res these days. Some will have larger monitors, while a few will have smaller ones. If you take 1920x1080 as a happy medium, and allow for a bit of zooming in on the tasty bits, and you can do that without getting too much blur and noise, I'd say you've reached the happy place.

1920x1080 is well good enough for me as a picture, but a step too high as a video. And given the rise of tiny mobile monitors under 10 inches. Really is anyone going to truly notice.

[buttsie]

The scanning threads all lead to the sweet spot in terms of file size

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/f46...-feedback.html

How to convert scans to reasonable size?

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/t75...able-size.html


As my Windowss 8.1 only goes to 1024x my Windows 7.1 1366x
i'm not fussed 3509x etc is wasted on my smaller screens

Large HD Scans tend to make better quality avatars so i've been told