Reading scans

[E-Day]

While looking at what scans we have available, I was reminded that the scans come in three different widths: 1600, 1440 and 1280 pixels wide. This got me to wondering how people are reading these scans, whether is on a tablet or something similar or on a computer screen. Then I was wondering if the current 1600 width is enough or if there was a desire to have it bumped up to 1920 (or close to that number since pages are cropped by height now), though file size would increase quite a bit with this.

So I have come up with this little two-question poll to see how people comsune these scans and if the status quo is good for everyone.

[KiwiArcader]

Over at OGM I scan my mags and leave them full size.

The advent of high res displays on newer tablets or 4K monitors mean downsizing the mags has the potential to reduce their clarity on such devices and/or offer no visual improvement if zooming in on the pages. Sure the size of a typical mag hits 200+ MB but it is worth it in the long run.

[E-Day]

Full size could be an option as well. I will add it to the poll.

Luckily I have kept the last 8 or so scans I have done, though I did not save them between editing them and downsizing them. So to rerelease them down the road at a higher resolution would require editing them again. But the editing is the fast part of the process

[RetroDefense]

I usually read digital mags via tablet, though I'll sometimes use my PC on occasion.

While I'm not a fan of large downloads (my Internet connection is quite slow in this rural area I live in), I'd rather scans be future-proofed as much as possible, so voted full size scan. Certainly beats re-scanning and/or re-editing every so often.

Best case scenario, though - offer two download options. A full size scan along with a suitable (but download-friendly) lower-res scan. Or perhaps archive full size scans so that currently downloadable scans can be (somewhat easily) upgraded at a later date as display tech improves.

[E-Day]

That last point is a good idea.