# Is this a standard  width  and length?



## bocadave (Jan 24, 2013)

What  determines   the width and  height   of   images?


This is my dilemma.


I am building a website  that  I need to reduce the  images   both in total pixel  size  to make it  72 dpi,   and  size  to Constrain Proportions.

I  have  to make  predetermined sizes on my web site  so  each  area with image  it  will  handle a proper Constrain Proportion image 

I need the  same camera  shot  to fit proportionately in  each  area.


I need to  make each area  the proper size to  handle a scaled down  photo.


So  is there a standard size  a camera  takes  for like a point and shoot?


Or is each camera different ?



You can  see  this sample  where  I have 2 problems

1. larger image  is not proportional  to fit the box
2. and the thumbnail is proportional  and doesnt fit the box


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 24, 2013)

bocadave said:


> What  determines   the width and  height   of   images?
> 
> 
> This is my dilemma.
> ...



DPI is used for printing. There is no 'standard' image size for websites.... you can use any size you want.

Right-click on any web image, and choose _Properties_ or _View Image Information_ or something similar.  You will then be given the dimensions of that image (600x530, 1440x937, etc).  That will tell you what pixel dimensions you need to resize your images to.


----------



## bocadave (Jan 24, 2013)

I know all what you said already.  That was not  my  questions at all though.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 24, 2013)

bocadave said:


> I know all what you said already.  That was not  my  questions at all though.




Each camera is different... depends on the sensor size and the pixel count.


----------



## bocadave (Jan 24, 2013)

Ok.  Getting  better.     So  I would need to use the same  camera  for all the shots  to  keep my  sanity  in  adjusting  the   images for the  website.

Or  if I have  other shots--    I can  simply crop it proportionately which  after  all my thoughts-- *this is the way to do it  anyway*. 



Would I be correct  to say  that if I use one Point and Shoot   the sensor size and the pixel count   will be the same  for every picture  or  can  this vary  on the  same  PS  camera?​


----------



## ceejtank (Jan 24, 2013)

bocadave said:


> Ok. Getting better.  So I would need to use the same camera for all the shots to keep my sanity in adjusting the images for the website.
> 
> Or if I have other shots-- I can simply crop it proportionately which after all my thoughts-- *this is the way to do it anyway*.
> 
> ...



Your question was answered before - you just don't understand it.  You're referring to 72 DPI - which is something used in printing, not viewing on the web.  So asking us about a DPI size for the web is comparing something that's useless.

Cameras each take different sizes based on their settings.  You can use a program like photoshop to adjust them all to a certain quality if you want.  You can change the size of a shot (in terms of bytes) by reducing quality, or reducing size.  You can also use programs like photoshop to adjust pixel size.

To answer your last question - in menus you can set the quality of the picture, and some let you adjust for the size as well.  It would depend on the camera.  

The easiest solution to this is use a aftermarket program (or one that comes with your camera) to re-size to what you need.


----------



## ceejtank (Jan 24, 2013)

Also - if you're designing a website, you should use something that adjusts to the width of the monitor and resizes accordingly.. like Java for example.


----------



## bocadave (Jan 24, 2013)

ceejtank said:


> bocadave said:
> 
> 
> > Your question was answered before - you just don't understand it.  You're referring to 72 DPI - which is something used in printing, not viewing on the web.  So asking us about a DPI size for the web is comparing something that's useless.
> ...


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 24, 2013)

What you need to do is establish what the size of the content area is on the website in terms of pixels. 

Then, establish what the aspect ratio is. If its 2:3 then you don't need to crop. But you do need to downsize the image to the proper area or else it will appear too large on the page. 

Getting thumbnails to display in 2:3 is a bit trickier as you'll need to adjust portions of the coding of the website. I wouldn't be so concerned with that part.


----------



## bocadave (Jan 24, 2013)

ceejtank said:


> Also - if you're designing a website, you should use something that adjusts to the width of the monitor and resizes accordingly.. like Java for example.




Yeah.   It's a bit  more  complicated (and costly) to  do "Responsive"  type  CSS  programming.  But you are correct  in that  advice, although for this site  I didn't  do it.


----------



## ceejtank (Jan 24, 2013)

bocadave said:


> ceejtank said:
> 
> 
> > Also - if you're designing a website, you should use something that adjusts to the width of the monitor and resizes accordingly.. like Java for example.
> ...



I'm aware. was just offering my .02.


----------



## bocadave (Jan 24, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> What you need to do is establish what the size of the content area is on the website in terms of pixels.



So do that  first?  B/c  I was  going to  do that based on  the camera.  In other words  I will establish  an approximate  baseline  for width and height  as I showed in my sample.  Then  I can  adjust  that  once I  have   the exact  size of  the   camera image  which will have to be   scaled down proportionately.  





o hey tyler said:


> Then, establish what the aspect ratio is. If its 2:3 then you don't need to crop.




Does that mean  2 wide  by  3 high or visa-versa?




o hey tyler said:


> But you do need to downsize the image to the proper area or else it will appear too large on the page.



    But I think  we are saying the same  thing as I  said above ?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 24, 2013)

bocadave said:
			
		

> So do that  first?  B/c  I was  going to  do that based on  the camera.  In other words  I will establish  an approximate  baseline  for width and height  as I showed in my sample.  Then  I can  adjust  that  once I  have   the exact  size of  the   camera image  which will have to be   scaled down proportionately.
> 
> Does that mean  2 wide  by  3 high or visa-versa?
> 
> But I think  we are saying the same  thing as I  said above ?



You don't need to base anything on the camera. Almost all cameras use the same aspect ratio... Once you get the size of the content area, you can bring an image into photoshop or the gimp and resize it whilst keeping the proportions. 

Again, let me stress, the camera DOES NOT matter. I upload photos to my website from a 12mp 5D mark I and a 5D mark II which is 21mp. I handle the files the same way by resizing them to 960px wide. 

And actually I made a typo earlier, the ratio is 4:3 for straight out of camera files.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 24, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> bocadave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In most cameras the ratio is 3:2, some cameras like the m3/4 have a different native resolution so look at the specs for your camera to find out.
If the space on the web is in a 3:2 aspect ratio, it will also have a specific size in pixels, so the image must be downsized to fit - and the quality adjusted.(also known as compression)
Lower quality means smaller file size (and more file compression) but that effects the web viewing quality very little.
The difference in the file size - and load rate - is substantial.  

Note the 9:1 difference in the file size for this fairly large image.

High resolution (low compression)472 kb






Medium quality (and compression) 106 kb






Low quality (and high compression) 53 kb


----------



## bocadave (Jan 24, 2013)

Thanks,  you guys.

I checked  my  PointShoot  Canon  A80     and see that  it has choices  for   2272X1704   etc     a 4x3  aspect  ratio.   So  now I  know  how to  format  my site.   I need all the photo  areas  to  be  a 4x3   if I use  this  camera--  (probably  time for  an upgrade,  but to  me  the novice  camera  guy-   these  pictures  look good)    

I  wonder  if a new PS camera  will  actually  take anything  better  quality  than the  A80 ?


(I know you pros  are probably laughing  at my  choice of cameras)


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 24, 2013)

If you are making pictures only for the web and they won't be full-screen, then you are probably OK with any new-ish P&S as long as you don't try to 1) get too close (perspective distortion), 2) record color perfectly (not great color rendition), 3) get exquisite fine detail (inadequate lens and sensor), 4) make full screen shots from part of the image (low resolution and non-great sensor), 5) shoot moving objects (shutter lag and autofocus issues), 6) use the built-in flash for everything (bad lighting, harsh shadows), 7) shoot in low light (bad shadow detail and color noise) or 8) shoot architectural shots and expect straight lines (distortion from short lens).


----------



## Garbz (Jan 25, 2013)

ceejtank said:


> like Java for example.



I'm going to slap you!



bocadave said:


> 72 Dpi  is not a useless fact  for putting  images on the web.



Actually it is. The last time 72 DPI had any relevance for computing was back around 1985 when the mackintosh which had 72 physical dots per inch on its display was discontinued. In about the mid to late 1980s computers monitors actually changed in size but not resolution which caused the whole 72DPI thing to be thrown out the window. Yet somehow here we are 30 years later unable to let go. I don't think there's a single display on the market that actually is 72DPI. More over there's no guaranteeing that the web browser will render the result at the correct size (saying that as someone who sits quite far from their screen and thus surfs the web with a slight zoom applied).


----------



## bocadave (Jan 25, 2013)

> Actually it is.​


  not.


The Myth of DPI | Webdesigner Depot

However   you  really  misstated the facts  as pertaining to this thread I believe as there has been the common  notion  to  set images  with less  resolution dpi for  web use.

That url  is one opinion   which  has nothing to do with  what you have stated at all


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 25, 2013)

bocadave said:
			
		

> not.
> 
> The Myth of DPI | Webdesigner Depot
> 
> ...



I didn't realize you were suddenly an expert on this subject. 

Did you read the article? This was pretty close to the top. 

"In print, pixels per inch and dots per inch impact the size of an image on a page. *DPI doesn&rsquo;t apply to layout on the web.*

When someone converts an image to 72 DPI, they&rsquo;re adding an extra step with no benefit. *Web pages are measured in pixels, not real-world units such as inches.*"


----------



## bocadave (Jan 25, 2013)

thanks for the help.  


This use of this thread  has got into  a spitting match  and off topic.  My questions  were answered.


----------

