thumbnail and full size images

[Stuart Miller]

I have a hobby site, with a lot of pictures of family and various other
hobby group activities. I have always used 'the gimp' to create small
images, about 160x120 to display with a link to the real image if the caller
wants to see it. This way I can cut the bandwidth usage and allow the pages
to load faster, particularly for dial up users.

If I specify, for example, a 1600x1200 picture into a cell size of 160x120,
when does the compression take place? Does apache compress the image before
sending, or does the viewer's browser do the compression? Or can this be
controlled?

I would be a help if I did not have to create small images of everything,
but if the compression is done by the browser then I am still transmitting
the entire image, so I am not creating faster loading pages.

Thanks

Stuart

 

[Steven Saunderson]

If I specify, for example, a 1600x1200 picture into a cell size of 160x120,
when does the compression take place? Does apache compress the image before
sending, or does the viewer's browser do the compression? Or can this be
controlled?

The resizing is done by the browser. It is much better to supply a
correctly sized image. If resampling is a bother I have a Win32 program
that will resample and upload images. Check
<http://stevensaunderson.com/pickup.htm> if interested.

If you want to resample on the server it is easy with PHP provided the
GD image processing library is available on your server.

 

[dorayme]

The resizing is done by the browser. It is much better to supply a
correctly sized image. If resampling is a bother I have a Win32 program
that will resample and upload images. Check
<http://stevensaunderson.com/pickup.htm> if interested.

If you want to resample on the server it is easy with PHP provided the
GD image processing library is available on your server.

Which is not a bad way to go I suppose, especially for the
thumbnails, you just load up the good bigger images. OP's example
is a bit frightening though! 1600 x 1200 indeed... In fact,
though, if the situation is not something very dynamic, and we
are taking just thumbnails and one enlargement, it is not a lot
of trouble to prepare high quality in a good photo editor and
load up the lot...

 

[Steven Saunderson]

Which is not a bad way to go I suppose, especially for the
thumbnails, you just load up the good bigger images. OP's example
is a bit frightening though! 1600 x 1200 indeed...

I'd expect the 1600 x 1200 image file to be 100 times the size of a 160
x 120 image. This is horribly inefficient and unfortunately quite
common. Being a responsible citizen I have complained to some people
about their sites. So far I have a perfect record of annoying everybody
and achieving nothing.

I'm not recommending resizing on the fly as it is a nasty load for the
server. But it should be easy to write a PHP script that will accept
the details and then resize/resample the image and produce a small
version.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

The resizing is done by the browser. It is much better to supply a
correctly sized image. If resampling is a bother I have a Win32 program
that will resample and upload images. Check
<http://stevensaunderson.com/pickup.htm> if interested.

Since the OP was sent on OE, we can assume he has access to a WinBox. I
would recommend the freeware IrfanViewer

http://www.irfanview.com/

Really simple to run batch mode where you can resize and apply filter
like sharpen and even append to the filename if you wish to build all
your thumbnail in one click. You can select all the file with drag and
drop so it is ease for the technically challenged.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Being a responsible citizen I have complained to some people about
their sites. So far I have a perfect record of annoying everybody
and achieving nothing.

"Who the hell are you to be telling me how to manage my sight?"

There's other times you find a webmaster, or in this case, webmistress,
who really get indignant when you write and advise their site is crap. I
reported this one to the owner (tastefully, I thought), who forwarded it
to the author, and I got back a scathing email from her telling me how
wrong and how rude I was, for even suggesting the site was really
borked. See for yourself in anything other than IE. (Hint: it's an MS
Publisher site):

http://www.redskyibizans.com/

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

"Who the hell are you to be telling me how to manage my sight?"

ROTFL!!!!! I love it! Shame on you for criticizing her *vision*

I feel ignored, at least you got a response!

There's other times you find a webmaster, or in this case, webmistress,
who really get indignant when you write and advise their site is crap. I
reported this one to the owner (tastefully, I thought), who forwarded it
to the author, and I got back a scathing email from her telling me how
wrong and how rude I was, for even suggesting the site was really
borked. See for yourself in anything other than IE. (Hint: it's an MS
Publisher site):

http://www.redskyibizans.com/

I got so frustrated that I took a day and whipped this up

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/

Most of the time was spent deciphering the Publisher crap and
downloading the monster images, many >2.5MB! My version, the whole site,
is only 1.2MB, less than MS Publisher markup(forget the media)!!!!

 

[Els]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

I got so frustrated that I took a day and whipped this up

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/

Gives a 500, on the entiresite, not just that directory.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Gives a 500, on the entiresite, not just that directory.

Try http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/index.php

Damn Fatcow, must be futzing with their servers again. I am about to do
a Joe Pesci on them "Dats it!"

 

[Els]

Try http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/index.php

Nice entirely blank page

In the mean time the other link is working properly now though. I can
actually see pictures of dogs, while the original site doesn't show
any picture (or link) at all.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Nice entirely blank page

In the mean time the other link is working properly now though. I can
actually see pictures of dogs, while the original site doesn't show
any picture (or link) at all.

Yep, just got of the phone with tech support, seems my server is under
repair and will be 'flakey' (that was the technical term used) until 6PM EST

Well I guess it is impetus to host shopping. Mine is not a vanity site
but my business. I have been with them for many years and I manage
several other sites for clients. Have been very good in the past but
recently but frustrated with their 'upgrades' that involve complicated
server configs that has muck management and deployment. I'm looking at a
Kentucky company Host Excellence. I think I'll move my dog site over and
test them out. They seem to have good reviews.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:


Nice entirely blank page

In the mean time the other link is working properly now though. I can
actually see pictures of dogs, while the original site doesn't show
any picture (or link) at all.

Now it is up! Guess it is going to be an up|down thing today! Great I am
trying to sell my friend on this over the POS site she has and it will
be a crap shoot if she can see it!

 

[Els]

Now it is up! Guess it is going to be an up|down thing today!

Sounds like a good description of flakey ;-)

 

[Stuart Miller]

Since the OP was sent on OE, we can assume he has access to a WinBox. I
would recommend the freeware IrfanViewer

http://www.irfanview.com/

Really simple to run batch mode where you can resize and apply filter like
sharpen and even append to the filename if you wish to build all your
thumbnail in one click. You can select all the file with drag and drop so
it is ease for the technically challenged.

Thanks for the information.
I post from an xp box because I have it keep it running for the business.
I have a file server running linux, and I have my own web server running
linux/apache here as well.
The large images are so that family & friends can edit and print the images
for themselves. I just post them exactly as they come from the camera.
The workload to the server of resizing images on the fly is not going to be
significant, so one day I will figure out how to do that. But for now, I
will continue to manually create the thumbnail size.

Stuart

 

[richard]

I have a hobby site, with a lot of pictures of family and various other
hobby group activities. I have always used 'the gimp' to create small
images, about 160x120 to display with a link to the real image if the
caller wants to see it. This way I can cut the bandwidth usage and allow
the pages to load faster, particularly for dial up users.

If I specify, for example, a 1600x1200 picture into a cell size of
160x120, when does the compression take place? Does apache compress the
image before sending, or does the viewer's browser do the compression? Or
can this be controlled?

I would be a help if I did not have to create small images of everything,
but if the compression is done by the browser then I am still transmitting
the entire image, so I am not creating faster loading pages.

Thanks

Stuart

To load the page faster, you should use true thumbnails, not compressed
versions.
Resample the original to your desired size, as in your 160x120 case, then
rename it to photo101-tn.jpg.
Why do you want to display a 1600x1200 image knowing that your viewer would
have to scroll either way to see it all?

Define the area the same size as the thumbnail, or a tad bigger, and load
the thumbnail into it.

A simple editor like Irfanview can easily do the trick.

www.irfanview.com

 

[dorayme]

Why do you want to display a 1600x1200 image knowing that your viewer would
have to scroll either way to see it all?

He did say.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

I would recommend the freeware IrfanViewer

http://www.irfanview.com/

With few exceptions, I would recommend not automating the
thumbnail-making process:

<http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9611.html>