Members Areas That Have Larger Images Than Browser/Page Width?

So i was curious how you folks would handle a members area specifically when it came to 'image content' that was upwards of 2000px in width/height on the longest side, obviously there is going to be a LOT of scrolling involved.

Do you think that...

1) This might be to big for members area image sizes?
2) The images should open on a HTML page or their own browser window?
3) The images should be zipped up and downloaded by the member?

What are your thoughts on this please as im currently stuck with this problem, should i reduce the size of the images or use one of the two options i mentioned above?

Regards,

Lee

most of the sites i see with big pics offer more than one size so members can choose. some of the straight erotica sites offer pics 2000 or 3000 pixels per side, and some offer the pics in 3 or 4 resolutions.

personally i hate scrolling and pictures that open in a separate browser window. therefore i would build members area pics 'fit to screen' or offer different sizes for the customer to choose with 'fit to screen' as default setting. zipped sets are also a good idea which i definitely would offer.

maybe it would be good to get an answer from site owners who offer different sizes. they should know which sizes are more popular. if big sized pics don't get much attention it's probably a question if it's not a waste of bandwidth and money to offer them.

Somebody has a really nifty Java-based still viewer that is either free (open source) or pretty cheap. If I remember right, it automagically scales the image to the resolution of the member's screen.

I don't remember offhand the name of the viewer, but I will dig around and see if I can find it, or maybe somebody else can remember the name of it.

Hmmm... that's strange... I use Mozilla and IE and whenever I view extreme huge images like 6000 px image ALWAYS fits right into my browser... I mean if you click on it again, it gets to its actual size....

What types of browsers do you guys have that people need to scroll?

Just be sure that image opens in new windows as itself and not embeded in the page.

I noticed that Firefox does that... thought I'd screwed up the sizing of some images I was using... but wasn't aware that IE did it also.

But even so, a nifty user-configurable stills viewer is still a good thing :)

yup - both browsers do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

I noticed that Firefox does that... thought I'd screwed up the sizing of some images I was using... but wasn't aware that IE did it also.

But even so, a nifty user-configurable stills viewer is still a good thing :)

---

yes, ff and ie fit the pic to the screen when they open in a new window, but the problem with new browser windows is that you can't use the back/forward buttons to browse through a picture set or to get back to the original page. you have to close each picture separately or soon you will have hundred or more pictures open when viewing a complete set. that's why i prefer to have the picture opened in the original page as 'fit to screen'. it's just easier to navigate, easier to view and i have to use as few clicks as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by attis

yes, ff and ie fit the pic to the screen when they open in a new window, but the problem with new browser windows is that you can't use the back/forward buttons to browse through a picture set or to get back to the original page. you have to close each picture separately or soon you will have hundred or more pictures open when viewing a complete set. that's why i prefer to have the picture opened in the original page as 'fit to screen'. it's just easier to navigate, easier to view and i have to use as few clicks as possible.

---

Nah, I think most people use tabbed browsing, so they still have only one window opened

Is tabbed browsing really that popular? I still prefer windowed browsing. Maybe I'm just 'old fashioned' or it's my personal style, but I prefer it to keep the mouse pointer away from the main window as much as possible. I think using a bar at the bottom is much more convenient to use. And it really doesn't make much difference if I have opened dozens of tabs or dozens of windows, does it?

actually the last several sites i reviewed open the pics in a new window, not in a new tab. that's pretty common, and some people like it - i'm not one of them.

attis - i find tabbed browsing easier, but it took a while to get used to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hotporn

Nah, I think most people use tabbed browsing, so they still have only one window opened

---

When IE shrinks the oversized image on to fit the window, the image quality drops a lot. How do yall deal with that? My concern is that less sophisticated surfers wont realize that they are not supposed to look grainy and with jagged edges.

CSS can scale images up/down based on browser window size

the sophisticated surfers probably know to click the image once to see it full sized. or you can let them know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex_Manifest_M

When IE shrinks the oversized image on to fit the window, the image quality drops a lot. How do yall deal with that? My concern is that less sophisticated surfers wont realize that they are not supposed to look grainy and with jagged edges.

---

i would just keep them smaller than the browser then