Controlling size of the image that href= opens?

[Jeffrey Silverman]

of the images from their actual size. there are some exceptions.

I understand what happens. what are the exceptions??? IMO, none. no
exceptions. image width and height are for the browser to know ahead of
time so it can lay out the page, not to resize the image.

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

http://moreshit.usenetshit.info/wraping-images-thingy.shit

I'm guessing that the secret for determining the width of the href (NOT the
link's img is in "//moreshit.usenetshit.info/1", but I'm getting
===================================================================
404 Shit Not Found

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

It's useful if you want your image to occupy the same proportion of the
browser window, regardless of window size.

That's my case. I want the image to occupy 100% of a frame. Optimally, I'd
just want larger images shrunk and smaller ones left alone. But I'd take it
either way.

My problem seems TB that I want to force the size on the href (which is opened
in that other frame), not the img of a link. Bandwidth is moot BC this is a CD
application.

 

[jake]

RE/

That's my case. I want the image to occupy 100% of a frame. Optimally, I'd
just want larger images shrunk and smaller ones left alone. But I'd take it
either way.

something like:
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/zoom/zoompic.htm ?

(Non-optimum image, compressed 18:1)

My problem seems TB that I want to force the size on the href (which is opened
in that other frame), not the img of a link. Bandwidth is moot BC
this is a CD
application.

regards

 

[brucie]

In alt.html (Pete Cresswell) said:

I'm guessing that the secret for determining the width of the href
(NOT the link's img is in "//moreshit.usenetshit.info/1", but I'm
getting 404 Shit Not Found

that address doesn't exist. the links are just dummies. if they were
real they would link to a page with the full size image. look at the
above page source and you'll see comments up near the top of the page on
how the layout was achieved.

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Jeffrey Silverman said:

I understand what happens. what are the exceptions??? IMO, none.

its not so common now we have fun 'n giggly CSS but an example would be
sending a 10x10px solid color gif and using the with/height attributes
to change it to a 200x20px image on the page to make a border.

i.e send a 10x10px image but on the page use:

<img src="my-border.gif" width="10" height="200" alt="">

its less bytes so faster and theres no degradation with solid colors.

another one is balancing the quality with download speed and upsizing
thumbs. send a 35x35px image but on the page specify 50x50px.

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/zoom/zoompic.htm ?

(Non-optimum image, compressed 18:1)

No, it's two frames. Thumbs in one, full-size in the other.

I feel really dumb now - having spewed all this test about the situation and now
it's finally dawned on me that I just could have posted a link to a
prototype.....

Here's the prototype:

http://www.fatbelly.com/Class59/45th/45thPix_Root.htm


Click on r01-04.jpg and I think you'll get a pic that exceeds the frame size by
quite a bit. (some of the pics are pretty grainy - taken by throwaway 35mm
cameras that we put on the tables...)

The brass ring would be for each large pic to automagically resize itself as the
user changed the size of the browser's window....but I'd be really happy if I
could just have the pix fit when first opened.

I tried another proto with all pics sized to a common size. It works, but I
had to assume a lowest common denominator screen-size-wise....so people with
larger screens lose quality needlessly.

My fallback would be the "Small/Medium/"Large" suggestion - but that's a lot
more work if auto-resizing can be implemented with just a property or something.

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

that address doesn't exist. the links are just dummies. if they were
real they would link to a page with the full size image. look at the
above page source and you'll see comments up near the top of the p

I think I've been mis-communicating the requirements. Now that it's finally
dawned on me that I can post a URL, here's what I'm talking about:

http://www.fatbelly.com/Class59/45th/45thPix_Root.htm

It's the pix on the right side of the screen whose size I want to control. The
thumbnails on the left are no problem.

 

[brucie]

In alt.html (Pete Cresswell) said:

Now that it's finally dawned on me that I can post a URL,

i have to hunt you down and kill you now.

here's what I'm talking about:
http://www.fatbelly.com/Class59/45th/45thPix_Root.htm

quick and dirty:
http://moreshit.usenetshit.info/thumbs-with-big-image-thingy.shit

rather than having to do each page a bit of server side scripting would
be ideal for the above.

 

[rf]

(Pete Cresswell)

I think I've been mis-communicating the requirements. Now that it's finally
dawned on me that I can post a URL, here's what I'm talking about:

http://www.fatbelly.com/Class59/45th/45thPix_Root.htm

You must be bloody kidding.

These images are HUGE. I just found one that is over a megabyte, and the bit
I can see is the back of some blokes head

Nobody, at all, on dial up is going to wait around for stuff like that to
eventually download.

Resize these images in your favourite image editor. Resize the to something
like 600x400 and compressed to no larger than 50K per each.

Do not, under any curcumstances, download these raw images and resize them
client side.

 

[brucie]

In alt.html rf said:

Nobody, at all, on dial up is going to wait around for stuff like that to
eventually download.

<whisper> ummm... rf, its for a CD</whisper> but i agree, size is still
an issue regardless.

 

[rf]

In alt.html rf said:



<whisper> ummm... rf, its for a CD</whisper> but i agree, size is still
an issue regardless.

Ah, missed that. Havn't been following the thread that closely.

What's wrong with width=100%?

Or I missing something else?

 

[brucie]

In alt.html rf said:

Ah, missed that. Havn't been following the thread that closely.

you haven't been doing that real life stuff have you? it'll make you go
blind.

What's wrong with width=100%?

images on the right he wants 100x100% or maybe just width 100% and

Or I missing something else?

over in AWW lois said to me "i'm interested" which was very exciting
but she only wants me for my CSS. :-(

 

[rf]

brucie

In alt.html rf said:



you haven't been doing that real life stuff have you? it'll make you go
blind.

I've been <shudder> outside </shudder>, on the roof, trying to stop the rain
from sneaking in and making a puddle on the lounge room floor. I don't have
a dog to blame so it *must* be the rain. I'll get it done eventually, just
another tube of silicon or two...

images on the right he wants 100x100% or maybe just width 100% and
height proportional to the 100%. something like that. <shrugs/>

Last time I did a photo album on a CD (400+ images) I resized all images to
whatever by 400. Nobody even commented that they didn't fill up the canvas.
I assume they thought that was how photo albums on a CD were supposed to
look

The web version is even more restricted. Those nice big digital images are
compressed to buggery. Still no artifacts on your normal monitor though.
This is not an issue really since most of the images are scanned photos.

http://cueword.com.au/mulubinba/

Only when we show the album on a 10 foot screen (at the Xmas party) do we
use the full high res images (1MB per each). Resized of course (*NOT* using
a browser, using real-time image manipulation) to exactly fit the screen.

over in AWW lois said to me "i'm interested" which was very exciting
but she only wants me for my CSS. :-(

I saw that. Cheeky blighter isn't she. Just like *all* the girls over there

 

[Toby Inkster]

What possible exceptions are there that the browser should resize the
image?

When you don't want to specify an image size in pixels.

e.g. some operating systems might not be able to display the € sign:

The browser should *never* resize the image!

Never say never again. ;-)

 

[Els]

I saw that. Cheeky blighter isn't she. Just like *all* the
girls over there

Moi?

 

[rf]

Moi?

No, no, Els. I refer to those other girls over there --->

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

These images are HUGE. I just found one that is over a megabyte, and the bit
I can see is the back of some blokes head

Nobody, at all, on dial up is going to wait around for stuff like that to
eventually download.

Download time isn't an issue BC they're going out on a CD.

Size is - but I was trying to find out if there was a method to automagically
fit each to the user's window so that different users with different screen
sized could each see the biggest version possible.

 

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/

Last time I did a photo album on a CD (400+ images) I resized all images to
whatever by 400. Nobody even commented that they didn't fill up the canvas.
I assume they thought that was how photo albums on a CD were supposed to
look

The web version is even more restricted. Those nice big digital images are
compressed to buggery. Still no artifacts on your normal monitor though.
This is not an issue really since most of the images are scanned photos.

http://cueword.com.au/mulubinba/

Only when we show the album on a 10 foot screen (at the Xmas party)

Ok, I guess that just about wraps it. I've been to the mountain...and dynamic
re-sizeing is not going to happen in this case....So I'll just resize to a
least-common denominator.

Is 800x600 going too far? If, say, 10% of the the users have that I wouldn't
have any problem with sticking them with something sized for 1280x1024...just to
give the others a break.

 

[Els]

No, no, Els. I refer to those other girls over there --->

Right! <g>