Pictures

[Guest ba747heavy]

I am wondering a few things about the pictures available on airliners.net1) Why are they never a 4:3 resolution like a desktop monitor is? Does this have to do with the way a picture is taken? A manufacturor option? Just the way the author decided to take the picture. I would love to use some of the pictures on airliners.net for my desktop background, but can't because of the 4:3 ratio thing, and of course, good 'ole number 2....2) Why such small resolutions for the large picture option? Is that just for bandwidth or what?Thanks all,

[Guest]

I've always wondered the same thing. Sorry I can't answer your question.

[Guest tgabriel]

I have at last count about 567 pictures available for desktop backgrounds that I have downloaded from Airliners.net and they all do just fine. The size and shape they are on the site comes from the size and shape of the format they are taken in and how they are set up by the site designers. I always download the images in the large size and save them to my wallpapers folder in the winnt folder with a name that fits like: "hang on tight" or some such. Then when I want to change wallpaper it makes it easy to go get one.

[Guest ba747heavy]

I understand that, but the thing is that when you do so, because of the utter lack of 4:3 ratio pictures, the image will distort because of resizing unequally in the x and y dimensions(meaning that the up and down part of the image will resize differently then then side to side part ;-)), and also the images are almost always too small for my resolution(1280x960), so they get somewhat distorted based on that...

[woodreau 0]

It's basically the way the image comes out. 35mm film comes out 36x24mm. An image from a digital camera is very similar.Back when I was doing black and white stuff. It was a big deal to develop your pictures "full frame" which meant that you showed your images to include the ugly borders, this proved that you took the picture in the viewfinder and you didn't crop or do any type of enlargement or "recomposition" in the darkroom because of you had a bad composition in the viewfinder/on location.I don't remember the image size of my camera off hand, I think it 3300 pixels by 2100 or so. This results in an image size of 17MB, a 1GB compact flash card will hold 57 of these manges. (it depends on how I get the camera set up.) But an image of this resolution I can get a 20x30 inch poster made. But for internet/screen use and in order to upload it and not take forever for non-broadband internet users to see it. I'll reduce it down to 1600x1000 or so 72dpi and make it a jpeg.Cheers :)

[Guest]

>1) Why are they never a 4:3 resolution like a desktop monitor>is? Does this have to do with the way a picture is taken? AA slide or negative has a 2:3 aspect ratio, not 4:3. Therefore the dimensions of many scans will closely resemble this.Many people may decide to make interesting crops leading to other aspect ratios (anything from panorama views to square pictures) depending on the subject.My digicam DOES produce images that have a 4:3 aspect ratio, but most professional DSLRs (which are just about the only thing that will still get your work accepted there on a regular basis) will have a 2:3 aspect ratio or something close to it.>2) Why such small resolutions for the large picture option? >Is that just for bandwidth or what?>bandwidth is one reason, another important reason is theft.Make it any larger (in fact, the current sizes are really too large!) and there will be a lot more images used without permissions by magazines, websites, TV stations, etc. than is the case now.My photos (400+ and growing :)): http://www.jetphotos.net/members/photostats.php?userid=197

[Guest ba747heavy]

Thanks for the answers fellows. I appreciate it :)

[Guest ENZV]

And one more reason for not making the pictures too large - it is easier to get them accepted, cause badquality or something isnt as appearant as it would be in a1600x1200 image.