Picture Size??

[imperialism2024]

FunkyNige said:

imperialism2024 said: Personally, I prefer a long page of large pictures. I can preview using Ted's compression, and if I see one I really like, I can view a full size image. Then again, not everyone has broadband and a 1200x1600 monitor... I would prefer large thumbnails I think, imageshack allows you to post thumbnails on a forum that link to the full size pic, but here we use [pic] instead of [img] so it doesn't work.

Sounds like a good compromise

[anonymous-user]

Just to be a it's not Ted's compression that causes the jaggies per say, it's your browsers. Ted's code just tells the browser to display any image that's greater than 750px wide as 750px. The browser then resizes it to fit. Some are better than others at doing this.

>> Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 27th July 14:47

[simpo two]

LexSport said:

Just to be a it's not Ted's compression that causes the jaggies per say, it's your browsers. Ted's code just tells the browser to display any image that's greater than 750px wide as 750px. The browser then resizes it to fit. Some are better than others at doing this.

That also means, as I thought all along, that if someone posts a 5Mb image, it will still be 5Mb even if it appears 750 pixels wide.

[dcw@pr]

simpo two said:

That also means, as I thought all along, that if someone posts a 5Mb image, it will still be 5Mb even if it appears 750 pixels wide.

yes, which is why the pictures are big as they load, and are only resized when it is complete

[anonymous-user]

Yep. The purpose of the code isn't to stop massive downloads, just to stop overlarge pictures stretching the page which then means lots of horizontal scrolling to read posts.

[imperialism2024]

LexSport said:

Yep. The purpose of the code isn't to stop massive downloads, just to stop overlarge pictures stretching the page which then means lots of horizontal scrolling to read posts.

No complaints from me!