Picture not showing correctly

[mkarja]

Hi,

I have setup a apache webserver and have one web site now on it.
I have couple of problems.

One is that for some reason the DocRoot index page is showing right,
but I've created Alias to another folder on my filesystem and that
doesn't
show up to the rest of the world. It's showing on my computer when I
type
in the address.

The other problem is that while the folder, pointed to by the Alias
option,
shows up, it doesn't show the pictures right. If the picture is small
enough
that it fits the screen then it's fine, but if it's bigger than the
screen it shows
only a little bit of the picture from the top and the rest of the
picture is just grey.
The code is just your normal img tag. <img src="picture.jpg">
I tried to use height and width attributes to make display smaller
size, but that
didn't help.

I'm not very experienced with apache, so the first one is propably
related to my
configuration somehow. I have a d-link wlan router and the computer
goes thru
that on the internet. That may also be the problem.
I've done some html coding before, but I've never had that picture
problem before.
Unfortunately I can't give you the url for you to check out, because
there are
pictures and not all the people in the pictures want their pictures
seen by whoever.

I don't know it this should've been posted to some apache forum, but I
thought
that I had an apache and an html problem, so I'd post it here. I'm
thinking the are
people here who are familiar with apache also.

Any help would be appreciated. If you need some more information, I'll
try to
provide more details.

- miKa

 

[Chaddy2222]

Hi,

I have setup a apache webserver and have one web site now on it.
I have couple of problems.

One is that for some reason the DocRoot index page is showing right,
but I've created Alias to another folder on my filesystem and that
doesn't
show up to the rest of the world. It's showing on my computer when I
type
in the address.

<snip>
You need to place all your directories in the Docroot folder otherwise
they won't show up.

 

[mkarja]

<snip>
You need to place all your directories in the Docroot folder otherwise
they won't show up.

Thanks for the answer.
So I can't create virtual directories or aliases, that point to some
other folder in the file system than Docroot?
So what's the point of aliases and virtual directories then?

- miKa

 

[Chaddy2222]

..
So I can't create virtual directories or aliases, that point to some
other folder in the file system than Docroot?
So what's the point of aliases and virtual directories then?

You should RTFM on this.
It (virtual directories) should work on Windows.

 

[mkarja]

You should RTFM on this.
It (virtual directories) should work on Windows.[/QUOTE]

OK, thanks for that enlightening answer.
I will RTFM tonight, just started the server thing yesterday and
didn't have too much time then
and I'm at work now so can't spend much time on reading any manuals
that isn't connected to my work.

But it's good to know that virtual directories work.

- miKa

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Hi,

I have setup a apache webserver and have one web site now on it.
I have couple of problems.

One is that for some reason the DocRoot index page is showing right,
but I've created Alias to another folder on my filesystem and that
doesn't
show up to the rest of the world. It's showing on my computer when I
type
in the address.

The other problem is that while the folder, pointed to by the Alias
option,
shows up, it doesn't show the pictures right. If the picture is small
enough
that it fits the screen then it's fine, but if it's bigger than the
screen it shows
only a little bit of the picture from the top and the rest of the
picture is just grey.
The code is just your normal img tag. <img src="picture.jpg">
I tried to use height and width attributes to make display smaller
size, but that
didn't help.

I'm not very experienced with apache, so the first one is propably
related to my
configuration somehow. I have a d-link wlan router and the computer
goes thru
that on the internet. That may also be the problem.
I've done some html coding before, but I've never had that picture
problem before.
Unfortunately I can't give you the url for you to check out, because
there are
pictures and not all the people in the pictures want their pictures
seen by whoever.

I don't know it this should've been posted to some apache forum, but I
thought
that I had an apache and an html problem, so I'd post it here. I'm
thinking the are
people here who are familiar with apache also.

No this is an apache configuration problem.

alt.apache.configuration or comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix

All depends on where and how you created the alias and the file
permissions on target folder. Corrupted jpegs seems to be another issue.

 

[mkarja]

No this is an apache configuration problem.

alt.apache.configuration or comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix

All depends on where and how you created the alias and the file
permissions on target folder. Corrupted jpegs seems to be another issue.

Thanks, I'll post this to one of those groups also.

- miKa

 

[mkarja]

Thanks, I'll post this to one of those groups also.

- miKa

Anybody have any idea about the images not showing correctly?
Can it be apache problem that the images only show from top a bit
and the rest is all grey. Images that fit the screen show up fine.

- miKa

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Anybody have any idea about the images not showing correctly?
Can it be apache problem that the images only show from top a bit
and the rest is all grey. Images that fit the screen show up fine.

No, not that I can think of. Sounds like the image is corrupted. If the
image data is truncated the image is sized in the header so you will get
the image displayed as far as you have data, but the grey or other
neutral color for the rest here the data is missing. This is observable
when you stop loading a web page in a browser when an image is only
partially downloaded. When you uploaded the image to the server, if you
used FTP, make sure you are in binary and not ascii mode...

 

[mkarja]

No, not that I can think of. Sounds like the image is corrupted. If the
image data is truncated the image is sized in the header so you will get
the image displayed as far as you have data, but the grey or other
neutral color for the rest here the data is missing. This is observable
when you stop loading a web page in a browser when an image is only
partially downloaded. When you uploaded the image to the server, if you
used FTP, make sure you are in binary and not ascii mode...

The image files are on my computer and when I open them in some
image viewer app they are fine, so I don't "upload" them anywhere,
I've just copied them to the directory. Oh, and it's windows machine.

A friend of mine suggested that the images are too big, that the
server
timesout when it tries to load them.
The images are quite big, around 3 megs, but they should still load.
It really doesn't take that much time to load up the page, when I open
the site in browser from my own computer.
You are right though about that it sounds like they just stop loading.

- miKa

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

The image files are on my computer and when I open them in some
image viewer app they are fine, so I don't "upload" them anywhere,
I've just copied them to the directory. Oh, and it's windows machine.

A friend of mine suggested that the images are too big, that the
server
timesout when it tries to load them.
The images are quite big, around 3 megs, but they should still load.
It really doesn't take that much time to load up the page, when I open
the site in browser from my own computer.
You are right though about that it sounds like they just stop loading.

Yep, a timeout error. Hmm 3Mb kind'a big for the web

 

[mkarja]

Yep, a timeout error. Hmm 3Mb kind'a big for the web

I resized one image file to 50% of it's original size and still won't
load
completely. It does load more of the picture. This time it loads
about
half of the picture and then the rest is grey. The size of the
resized
image is only 138 kb, so that should load.
It kinda sounds like a timeout issue, but that image file is so small
that it should load nicely. I put TimeOut option in the apache
configuration file and set it to 600 seconds, but it didn't help at
all.

- miKa

 

[dorayme]

<[email protected]

,

I resized one image file to 50% of it's original size and still won't
load
completely.

Resize it how? There are a number of things you can do to get the
thing to be suitable for the web. One of them is not to go bigger
than anyone can see on their screens. Mostly, to be generous,
that means not bigger than 1000px wide and not more than about
800 high. Better to hold such a size in reserve though only for
those wanting so big (you have a link and tell people what is
going on). Biggest *surprise* to folks should be about 800 wide,
600 high. That is one thing, a big determinate of file size but
only one.

There is then the question of how to prepare or compress. The end
result should, unless the user is requesting more, be not more
than about 120K (to be generous) and better altogether to be
under 60K for requested enlargements for which you do not provide
details to the user.

It is not wise to be loading anything like 1.5MB onto a web page.
What possible benefits could there be. One would need a screen
the size of a wall to see it.

 

[Bergamot]

It is not wise to be loading anything like 1.5MB onto a web page.
One would need a screen the size of a wall to see it.

Um, there is no relationship between the dimensions of an image and the
number of bytes. I can make a full screen size image that's less than
2KB. Likewise, a 100x200px image can be several hundred KB in size.

 

[dorayme]

Um,

Let me say it again then:

It is not wise - and there is no uming about it - to be loading
anything like 1.5MB onto a web page.

Let me quote myself a little from the post you reply to:

"There are a number of things you can do to get the
thing to be suitable for the web. One of them is not to go bigger
than anyone can see on their screens. ... Biggest *surprise* to
folks should be about 800 wide, 600 high. That is one thing, a
big determinate of file size but only one.

There is then the question of how to prepare or compress...
It is not wise to be loading anything like 1.5MB onto a web page.
What possible benefits could there be. One would need a screen
the size of a wall to see it."

(The *last sentence* was an exaggeration, of course. I was
thinking of some pictures I and others have prepared that look so
fine at 1000px across that are no more than 180px (but often much
lower) and that to maintain similar quality and show at 1.5MB at
100% would require quite a big screen)

there is no relationship between the dimensions of an image and
the number of bytes.

This, of course, is *almost perfectly* untrue in practice. It is
even perfectly untrue full stop.

If indeed there is no relationship between the dimensions of an
image and the number of bytes, then it should perhaps be
considered quite unusual or coincidental that people the world
over experience vastly reduced byte size of their image files
with little normal loss of quality by simply reducing the width
and height and resaving (especially if the master file worked on
is lossless)

I can make a full screen size image that's less than
2KB. Likewise, a 100x200px image can be several hundred KB in
size.

Smallest I can do for my biggest screen at 1600 by 1200 is 0.4KB.
But then it is not much of a "picture". Still an image file!

But hey, let us not fight on examples and practical day to day
grounds. That would be altogether too boring. Let us look at this
from the purest point of view.

Let us look at a graph of all the ordered pairs of images against
file size. This means specifically constructing as a prelude to
graphing, a simple 5 col table, 2 cols grouped to represent the
before and after size of images. 2 more cols to say the before
and after of byte size. And last col to give the percentage
difference in byte reduction.

What images shall we put in? Why, of course, every single pair
that has ever been worked on by anyone in internet history. That
would be a fair test, no? And it would give the lie to your
statement that there was no relationship between the dimensions
of an image and the number of bytes.