Gradual image fade in

Discussion in 'HTML' started by newtohtml@att.net, Jul 18, 2004.

  1. Guest

    I want to design a page which can do the following:

    1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on one
    will display the full size image (~50mb) on the same page next to the
    thumbnails. I have seen pages like this, but the whole page is reloaded
    to display the full image. Is there a way to do this without reloading
    the whole page, i.e. keep the thumbnails unchanged, and just update the
    full image?

    2. When displaying the above full image, can the full image gradually
    fade in and without seeing progressive or checker boxes?

    3. A slide show that will fade out an image and fade in a new one, much
    like on a real slide projector.

    Doing this in either html or with some other tool would be fine.
    Examples of existing sites that do this would be appreciated. Thanks.
     
    , Jul 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Webcastmaker Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > I want to design a page which can do the following...

    <snip>
    > Doing this in either html or with some other tool would be fine.
    > Examples of existing sites that do this would be appreciated. Thanks.\


    After reading all the posts about how you don't "really" want to do
    what you want, or how it won't work, your discriminating etc...
    (Some of which are true but irrelevant to your question.)

    Go to www.swishit.com. Download their demo. Take a day to run
    through the tutorial. You will be rewarded with a Flash development
    environment that will let you do everything you wanted and more.

    Swish is a Flash development environment that will let you
    graphically create some pretty sophisticated flash objects. The last
    time I checked it cost about $50.00

    --
    WebcastMaker
    The easiest and most affordable way to create
    Web casts, or put presentations on the Web.
    www.webentations.com
     
    Webcastmaker, Jul 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hywel Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    >
    > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on one
    > will display the full size image (~50mb)


    Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    browser?

    --
    Hywel

    http://sponsorhywel.org.uk/
     
    Hywel, Jul 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Webcastmaker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    > > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on one
    > > will display the full size image (~50mb)

    > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    > browser?


    Have you ever seen a 50 meg image? Probably not. I am guessing he
    means either 5 meg or 50k.
    --
    WebcastMaker
    The easiest and most affordable way to create
    Web casts, or put presentations on the Web.
    www.webentations.com
     
    Webcastmaker, Jul 18, 2004
    #4
  5. menu boy Guest

    "Hywel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, says...
    > > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    > >
    > > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on one
    > > will display the full size image (~50mb)

    >
    > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    > browser?
    >


    Astronomy nerds...like myself.
     
    menu boy, Jul 18, 2004
    #5
  6. Karl Groves Guest

    "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    news:wByKc.10327$...
    >
    > "Hywel" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <>, says...
    > > > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    > > >
    > > > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on one
    > > > will display the full size image (~50mb)

    > >
    > > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    > > browser?
    > >

    >
    > Astronomy nerds...like myself.
    >
    >


    Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?

    -Karl
     
    Karl Groves, Jul 18, 2004
    #6
  7. menu boy Guest

    "Karl Groves" <> wrote in message
    news:cdedpr$a37$...
    >
    > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > news:wByKc.10327$...
    > >
    > > "Hywel" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > In article <>, says...
    > > > > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    > > > >
    > > > > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on

    one
    > > > > will display the full size image (~50mb)
    > > >
    > > > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    > > > browser?
    > > >

    > >
    > > Astronomy nerds...like myself.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?


    On *my* PC? About 10 mins. I've downloaded images that big.
    They were all star charts, deep field sky images and the like.
     
    menu boy, Jul 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Neal Guest

    On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:59:18 -0400, Karl Groves <>
    wrote:

    >
    > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > news:wByKc.10327$...
    >>
    >> "Hywel" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > In article <>, says...
    >> > > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    >> > >
    >> > > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on

    >> one
    >> > > will display the full size image (~50mb)
    >> >
    >> > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    >> > browser?
    >> >

    >>
    >> Astronomy nerds...like myself.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?
    >
    > -Karl


    I'd "guesstimate" about 5 hours on dialup, 5 minutes on cable. Way too big
    for web use.
     
    Neal, Jul 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Webcastmaker Guest

    In article <cdedpr$a37$>,
    says...
    > > > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    > > > browser?

    > > Astronomy nerds...like myself.

    > Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?


    How long is completely irrelevant. If they know the size, they can
    make their own decision of they want to wait or not.

    --
    WebcastMaker
    The easiest and most affordable way to create
    Web casts, or put presentations on the Web.
    www.webentations.com
     
    Webcastmaker, Jul 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Webcastmaker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > > Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?

    > I'd "guesstimate" about 5 hours on dialup, 5 minutes on cable. Way too big
    > for web use.


    Completely irrelevant. The people that want the charts (an now that
    I know what they are 50 meg is not too bad) Will wait EVEN with
    dialup.

    This is one of those websites that is not meant for everyone, but the
    people that visit (Amat astronomers) will love it. So as we can see,
    50 meg is NOT too big for the Web. It is too big for YOU.

    --
    WebcastMaker
    The easiest and most affordable way to create
    Web casts, or put presentations on the Web.
    www.webentations.com
     
    Webcastmaker, Jul 18, 2004
    #10
  11. Arondelle Guest

    Webcastmaker wrote:
    >>>I want to design a page which can do the following:
    >>>1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on one
    >>>will display the full size image (~50mb)

    >>
    >>Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    >>browser?

    >
    > Have you ever seen a 50 meg image? Probably not. I am guessing he
    > means either 5 meg or 50k.


    I frequent several sites that feature galleries of computer-generated 3D
    graphics. (For instance: http://www.rederosity.com/ - free membership
    required) Some users like to work large: 2000x2000px and up.
    Fortunately, the site operators set a size limit on images that can be
    uploaded at about 150k, but there's always a bozo who loves to push that
    limit.

    I have no idea why anyone would bother rendering an image that size if
    all they're going to do is post it to an internet gallery: the detail is
    great, of course, but a user viewing it has to scroll all over to see
    all of it. Sort of takes all the fun out of that high resolution --
    unless you have a huge monitor with an outrageous screen resolution.

    Meanwhile, these images-on-steroids download in dog-years, and I,
    personally, click off to find something else I don't have to wait so
    long for. I have DSL; I shudder to think of what the download times are
    like on dial up.

    (OTOH, I work to the screen, 700x700px maximum, and get bitched at by
    the viewers with monster monitors who think my images are too tiny
    and/or too compressed. Can't please *anyone* these days...)

    Seems to me that presenting a huge image interactively is just asking
    for trouble: I was just recently bitched out for trying to do that with
    small photographs.

    Arondelle
    --
    ===========================================================
    To email me, empty the pond with a net
     
    Arondelle, Jul 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Karl Groves Guest

    "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    news:ZbzKc.12592$...
    >
    > "Karl Groves" <> wrote in message
    > news:cdedpr$a37$...
    > >
    > > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:wByKc.10327$...
    > > >
    > > > "Hywel" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > In article <>, says...
    > > > > > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on

    > one
    > > > > > will display the full size image (~50mb)
    > > > >
    > > > > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    > > > > browser?
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Astronomy nerds...like myself.
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?

    >
    > On *my* PC? About 10 mins. I've downloaded images that big.
    > They were all star charts, deep field sky images and the like.


    *Your* PC != everyone else's PC

    On 33.6kb, that image will take 4hr, 20m+
    On 56kb, that image will take 2hr, 34m+
    On cable or T-1, that image will take 5m 37s

    Some studies show that 60% of people will abandon an online transaction if
    the pages download slowly.

    "Users will wait about 10 seconds for a page to load, sometimes 15 seconds,
    before they lose interest"- Usability.gov

    " Are We There Yet? Effects of Delay on User Perceptions of Web Sites "
    http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/aug032.htm

    " Acceptable Computer Response Times "
    http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/apr012.htm


    --
    Karl Core
    http://www.karlcore.com
    http://www.usabilityinfo.com
    http://www.murderthestupid.com
     
    Karl Groves, Jul 18, 2004
    #12
  13. Webcastmaker Guest

    In article <cdejdd$fn8$>,
    says...
    > *Your* PC != everyone else's PC


    Don't you don't get it, in this case (huge star chart image
    specifically designed to be that big), this makes no difference.

    > On 33.6kb, that image will take 4hr, 20m+
    > On 56kb, that image will take 2hr, 34m+
    > On cable or T-1, that image will take 5m 37s


    Completely irrelevant in this case. If someone wants that chart,
    they will wait 4 hours on a 33k pipe. If they came to the site
    specifically to get this 50 meg image, they will wait.

    --
    WebcastMaker
    The easiest and most affordable way to create
    Web casts, or put presentations on the Web.
    www.webentations.com
     
    Webcastmaker, Jul 18, 2004
    #13
  14. menu boy Guest

    "Karl Groves" <> wrote in message
    news:cdejdd$fn8$...
    >
    > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > news:ZbzKc.12592$...
    > >
    > > "Karl Groves" <> wrote in message
    > > news:cdedpr$a37$...
    > > >
    > > > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:wByKc.10327$...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Hywel" <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:...
    > > > > > In article <>, says...
    > > > > > > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking

    on
    > > one
    > > > > > > will display the full size image (~50mb)
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
    > > > > > browser?
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Astronomy nerds...like myself.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?

    > >
    > > On *my* PC? About 10 mins. I've downloaded images that big.
    > > They were all star charts, deep field sky images and the like.

    >
    > *Your* PC != everyone else's PC
    >
    > On 33.6kb, that image will take 4hr, 20m+
    > On 56kb, that image will take 2hr, 34m+
    > On cable or T-1, that image will take 5m 37s
    >
    > Some studies show that 60% of people will abandon an online transaction

    if
    > the pages download slowly.


    These type of downloads are strictly for people who use them.
    They are generally in specialized sites, like astronomy sites.
    I doubt someone not looking for a 50 mb image is going to
    stumble on a page like this accidently.

    You should visit some astronomy sites. I see images that are
    10mb+ constantly.
     
    menu boy, Jul 18, 2004
    #14
  15. Karl Groves Guest

    "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    news:NLCKc.10375$...
    >
    > "Karl Groves" <> wrote in message
    > news:cdejdd$fn8$...
    > >
    > > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:ZbzKc.12592$...
    > > >
    > > > "Karl Groves" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:cdedpr$a37$...
    > > > >
    > > > > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:wByKc.10327$...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "Hywel" <> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:...
    > > > > > > In article <>, says...
    > > > > > > > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page.

    Clicking
    > on
    > > > one
    > > > > > > > will display the full size image (~50mb)
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in

    their
    > > > > > > browser?
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Astronomy nerds...like myself.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb

    image?
    > > >
    > > > On *my* PC? About 10 mins. I've downloaded images that big.
    > > > They were all star charts, deep field sky images and the like.

    > >
    > > *Your* PC != everyone else's PC
    > >
    > > On 33.6kb, that image will take 4hr, 20m+
    > > On 56kb, that image will take 2hr, 34m+
    > > On cable or T-1, that image will take 5m 37s
    > >
    > > Some studies show that 60% of people will abandon an online transaction

    > if
    > > the pages download slowly.

    >
    > These type of downloads are strictly for people who use them.
    > They are generally in specialized sites, like astronomy sites.
    > I doubt someone not looking for a 50 mb image is going to
    > stumble on a page like this accidently.
    >
    > You should visit some astronomy sites. I see images that are
    > 10mb+ constantly.


    I know some people who drive drunk. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it,
    too.

    -Karl
     
    Karl Groves, Jul 18, 2004
    #15
  16. Andy Dingley Guest

    On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 12:06:13 -0400, Webcastmaker
    <> wrote:

    >Have you ever seen a 50 meg image?


    Yes - thousands of them (I'm not joking). According to various
    arcane calculations, 60MB is the size needed to store digital images
    in TIFF format, sufficient to recreate a photo-quality 35mm slide.

    Another view is that this is entirely bogus, and that 6MB and Kodak's
    PhotoCD encoding is enough. However we were catching them as TIFFs -
    a handful to a CD.

    We got through _lots_ of CDs on that project, even with a robert to
    handle them for us.

    --
    Smert' spamionam
     
    Andy Dingley, Jul 19, 2004
    #16
  17. Webcastmaker Guest

    In article <cdeti3$p07$>,
    says...
    > I know some people who drive drunk. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it,
    > too.


    I think you are just trolling now Karl because you are blatantly
    ignoring the obvious. The visitors WANT this image. They search the
    web out for this exact thing. So if someone stumbles across the
    image, they will do one of two things. They will either leave
    because who would want to download a 50 meg picture. OR they will
    say WOW what an awesome detailed start map. It sure is worth the
    download time to get it. Because of the detail, an image with a
    lesser size would be worthless.

    See this is a perfect example where every page on the Web is not
    meant for everyone. This page is meant for people specifically
    looking for very hi-rez star maps. And It is ok for them to be on
    the web too. The OP should use alt text to tell everyone of the
    size, but other than that, they are on their own.

    --
    WebcastMaker
    The easiest and most affordable way to create
    Web casts, or put presentations on the Web.
    www.webentations.com
     
    Webcastmaker, Jul 19, 2004
    #17
  18. menu boy Guest

    "Karl Groves" <> wrote in message
    news:cdeti3$p07$...
    >
    > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > news:NLCKc.10375$...
    > >
    > > "Karl Groves" <> wrote in message
    > > news:cdejdd$fn8$...
    > > >
    > > > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:ZbzKc.12592$...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Karl Groves" <> wrote in message
    > > > > news:cdedpr$a37$...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:wByKc.10327$...
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > "Hywel" <> wrote in message
    > > > > > > news:...
    > > > > > > > In article <>, says...
    > > > > > > > > I want to design a page which can do the following:
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > 1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page.

    > Clicking
    > > on
    > > > > one
    > > > > > > > > will display the full size image (~50mb)
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in

    > their
    > > > > > > > browser?
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Astronomy nerds...like myself.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb

    > image?
    > > > >
    > > > > On *my* PC? About 10 mins. I've downloaded images that big.
    > > > > They were all star charts, deep field sky images and the like.
    > > >
    > > > *Your* PC != everyone else's PC
    > > >
    > > > On 33.6kb, that image will take 4hr, 20m+
    > > > On 56kb, that image will take 2hr, 34m+
    > > > On cable or T-1, that image will take 5m 37s
    > > >
    > > > Some studies show that 60% of people will abandon an online

    transaction
    > > if
    > > > the pages download slowly.

    > >
    > > These type of downloads are strictly for people who use them.
    > > They are generally in specialized sites, like astronomy sites.
    > > I doubt someone not looking for a 50 mb image is going to
    > > stumble on a page like this accidently.
    > >
    > > You should visit some astronomy sites. I see images that are
    > > 10mb+ constantly.

    >
    > I know some people who drive drunk. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it,
    > too.


    I can see where this is going. Thanks for your input, and your ridiculous
    comparison.
     
    menu boy, Jul 19, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <cdeti3$p07$>,
    "Karl Groves" <> wrote:

    > "menu boy" <> wrote in message
    > news:NLCKc.10375$...


    <trim some 60 lines which add little context to a, barely, 1 line
    response>

    > >
    > > You should visit some astronomy sites. I see images that are
    > > 10mb+ constantly.

    >
    > I know some people who drive drunk. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it,
    > too.


    I read this, and the first thing it reminded me of was Bill Gates'
    famous assertion that no PC would ever need more than 640K memory
    (though there now appears to be some question as to whether he did say
    it: <http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,1484,00.html>).

    Quick: what is the maximum file size anyone will ever have to
    legitimately download?

    If it's common practice in some field to require extremely high
    resolution images (as I'm fairly certain the case is in astronomy), then
    what legitimate reason is there to complain about the size of the file?

    Certainly, for the site hosting the image, it would be polite to inform
    the visitor of the size before the download -- maybe with an estimated
    download time to help those who have trouble estimating things like
    that. But beyond that, what on earth is wrong with allowing people to
    download large files of data if they wish?

    If your particular use case has no need for inflicting that sort of
    download on your visitors, then please, don't. The fact that you don't
    have a use case, however, doesn't mean that legitimate ones aren't out
    there.

    --
    Joel.

    http://www.cv6.org/
    "May she also say with just pride:
    I have done the State some service."
     
    Joel Shepherd, Jul 19, 2004
    #19
  20. Jeff Thies Guest

    Webcastmaker wrote:
    > In article <cdeti3$p07$>,
    > says...
    >
    >>I know some people who drive drunk. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it,
    >>too.

    >
    >
    > I think you are just trolling now Karl because you are blatantly
    > ignoring the obvious. The visitors WANT this image.


    There's no indication that the OP deals with astronomy images.

    Note line #3:

    3. A slide show that will fade out an image and fade in a new one, much
    like on a real slide projector.

    Not even a real astronomy nut would want to see a slideshow of 50 meg
    astronomy images that fade in and out every 10 minutes on his cable.
    Isn't that right menu boy? Don't you just save those 10 meg images or do
    you apply special effect to them?

    We'll never know what mistakes the OP made in his post because he is not
    following this thread!

    On another note, I have an aqauaintance that had a long page of html
    sized down images that he uploaded on his work connection. This was so
    slow, that I left this load overnight on my dialup. The following
    morning it was still loading, stupid happens.

    Jeff
     
    Jeff Thies, Jul 19, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    607
    Webcastmaker
    Jul 19, 2004
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gradual-Underflow Wars

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 7, 2011, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    442
  3. hon123456
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    458
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Apr 12, 2006
  4. Jake Barnes
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    220
    Evertjan.
    Sep 3, 2006
  5. Piotr Kaleta
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    242
    Henry
    Apr 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page