Checking out some of my favorite blogs and web-design sites I picked up a subtle, but attractive trend: the use of regularly shaped images. Branded07 and BrightCreative are two well-done examples. By keeping thumbnails and other images consistently sized, the well-ordered look of the site is maintained. This is particularly obvious on sites displaying multiple articles, such as Branded07’s article list where the consistent size and shape of the preview images maintains the vertical line of the site.
Keeping all the images on a site a consistent size or scale also speeds web-site template creation using CSS frameworks/templates, such as the 960 system, where the the template employs elements of pre-defined widths (for columns, etc.).
By example, Skinyourscreen.com has a sizeable amount of theme screenshots of consistent dimensions. To undertake a consistent pattern of screenshot presentation I ran the calculations to determine the dimensions for various scales of the average screen-shot. An example would be determining multiple thumbnail sizes for the average 1024×768 monitor resolution. Here, I picked maximum thumbnail widths of 800px, 480px, 400px, 320px, 300px, 256px, 160px, 150px, and 100px and calculated the corresponding height to maintain the scale:
| Width | Height |
|---|---|
| 1024 | 768 |
| 800 | 600 |
| 480 | 360 |
| 400 | 300 |
| 320 | 240 |
| 300 | 225 |
| 256 | 192 |
| 160 | 120 |
| 150 | 113 |
| 100 | 75 |
By repeating this for several popular wallpaper dimensions, the following table of conversions is obtained. To use it, look up the original image resolution on the top, and pick your preferred thumbnail WIDTH on the left: the intersection is the height:
Width and Height define the original dimensions of the image. Then look up the width at the top of the adjacent column to find the adjusted height of the scaled image.
| Width | Height | 800 | 480 | 400 | 320 | 300 | 256 | 160 | 150 | 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1024 | 600 | 469 | 281 | 234 | 188 | 176 | 150 | 94 | 88 | 59 |
| 1024 | 768 | 600 | 360 | 300 | 240 | 225 | 192 | 120 | 113 | 75 |
| 1152 | 864 | 600 | 360 | 300 | 240 | 225 | 192 | 120 | 113 | 75 |
| 1280 | 768 | 480 | 288 | 240 | 192 | 180 | 154 | 96 | 90 | 60 |
| 1280 | 800 | 500 | 300 | 250 | 200 | 188 | 160 | 100 | 94 | 63 |
| 1280 | 854 | 534 | 320 | 267 | 214 | 200 | 171 | 107 | 100 | 67 |
| 1280 | 960 | 600 | 360 | 300 | 240 | 225 | 192 | 120 | 113 | 75 |
| 1400 | 900 | 514 | 309 | 257 | 206 | 193 | 165 | 103 | 96 | 64 |
| 1440 | 900 | 500 | 300 | 250 | 200 | 188 | 160 | 100 | 94 | 63 |
| 1600 | 1200 | 600 | 360 | 300 | 240 | 225 | 192 | 120 | 113 | 75 |
| 1650 | 1050 | 509 | 305 | 255 | 204 | 191 | 163 | 102 | 95 | 64 |
| 1920 | 1080 | 450 | 270 | 225 | 180 | 169 | 144 | 90 | 84 | 56 |
Here is the Excel file I used to calculate these, just in case someone has a custom resolution they wish to calculate for:
Here are two Adobe Air applications that will work under both Mac OS X and Windows systems that permit batch processing with a good degree of control:
mickeblue
May 13, 02:39 AM | Permalink