Re: AUTO-SIZING YOUR <---W-I-D-E---> IMAGES in Older Versions of IEX (NÔÔB Friendly & Widescreen Ready!)

On Feb 18, 9:26*pm, "rf" <r...@z.invalid> wrote:

Why are you pointing to images on geocities?

Why are you posting with an anonymous email address? You don't have
authorization to see the site this will be hosted on. Don't be
impertinent. Oh and, you're absolutely incorrect about the graphics
issue. Always, ALWAYS start large and size down. I won't touch
miniature screens; that's your thread; so start it.

MISS CHIEVOUS

MISS CHIEVOUS wrote:

On Feb 18, 9:26 pm, "rf" <r...@z.invalid> wrote:

Why are you pointing to images on geocities?

Why are you posting with an anonymous email address?

Why does this matter to you?

You don't have
authorization to see the site this will be hosted on.

What? I just plugged one of those into images into my browsers address bar
and it works fine so I apparently do have authorization.

I see now that they are your example images from another thread.

Ah, I see now, you are developing an in-house web site, nothing to do with
the stuff you posted.

Don't be
impertinent.

What?

Oh and, you're absolutely incorrect about the graphics
issue.

What? It's a known issue that browsers do a poor job of resizing images.
Resized or quality, pick any one.

Always, ALWAYS start large and size down.

I never NEVER resize images in a browser.

I won't touch
miniature screens;

Well maybe you should. How many millions of mobile phones were sold last
year. IIRC it was many millions. Many more than widescreen LCD monitors.

Sorry, I forgot, I'm not allowed to look at your web site. Does the owner of
the web site you are developing have a mobile phone?

that's your thread; so start it.

What? My thread? I didn't start any thread. In fact I have *never* started a
thread in here.


Have you addressed the quirks mode issue?

In article <qhnnl.22127$cu.3835 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

It's a known issue that browsers do a poor job of resizing images

It's a known issue that nothing does much of a job at enlarging images.
There are some softwares about that make claims and perhaps I am not up
with how clever they might have become?

I think it is rather interesting issue actually! It seems to me to be in
principle impossible a task for a program that does not have human-like
intelligence and understanding.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <qhnnl.22127$cu.3835 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

It's a known issue that browsers do a poor job of resizing images

It's a known issue that nothing does much of a job at enlarging
images. There are some softwares about that make claims and perhaps I
am not up with how clever they might have become?

Indeed but why would one want to. All the images my camera (or my phone for
that matter) produces are huge. I sometimes have to pre-shrink them to get
them under the 2 meg limit upload limit, even before my server side smarts
re-sample them to a size and compression ratio suitable for the web.

I think it is rather interesting issue actually! It seems to me to be
in principle impossible a task for a program that does not have
human-like intelligence and understanding.

The GD bit of PHP (which I use for the above re-sampling) seems to me to be
pretty good. In some cases it's even better than some of the image
manipulation software I have. Does lots of very carefull pixel
interpolation. It might go a bit blurry (on resizing up) but there is no
pixelation.

Reminds me of television, the digital variety. They transmit, basically, an
mpeg data stream (simply heavily compressed (in both the spatial and the
time dimensions) jpegs).

I was talking to the CEO of Star TV (the Hong Kong satelite station). He
reckons the way they determine how much compression to use for their
satelite uplink (which sells on a per megabyte uploaded) is to crank up the
compression until *he* can just see the compression artifacts when peering
at his professional studio monitor. If *he* can *just* see the artifacts
then the joes at home in their loungeroom will never know the difference.
IIRC the actual compression used is around 80%, depending on programme
material. Yep, they throw away 80% of the digital information and the result
is still perfectly acceptable.

In article <doonl.22150$cu.8007 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <qhnnl.22127$cu.3835 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

It's a known issue that browsers do a poor job of resizing images

It's a known issue that nothing does much of a job at enlarging
images. There are some softwares about that make claims and perhaps I
am not up with how clever they might have become?

Indeed but why would one want to.

Oh if software could *really* do that, the advantages would be enormous.
I honestly don't know where to begin to list them. If anyone is still
intersted when I come back from my swim, I will happily tell them.

For now here is something rf. Sometimes one takes a pic but wants to
print it much bigger than its native size allows. Befab to prepare the
file so its quality all the way up.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <doonl.22150$cu.8007 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <qhnnl.22127$cu.3835 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

It's a known issue that browsers do a poor job of resizing images
It's a known issue that nothing does much of a job at enlarging
images. There are some softwares about that make claims and perhaps I
am not up with how clever they might have become?
Indeed but why would one want to.

Oh if software could *really* do that, the advantages would be enormous.
I honestly don't know where to begin to list them. If anyone is still
intersted when I come back from my swim, I will happily tell them.

But there is! Haven't your see CSI? All the digits of a license plate
can be resolved from just 3 pixels!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <3dd39$499e28a8$40cba7b4$20302 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <doonl.22150$cu.8007 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <qhnnl.22127$cu.3835 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

It's a known issue that browsers do a poor job of resizing images
It's a known issue that nothing does much of a job at enlarging
images. There are some softwares about that make claims and perhaps I
am not up with how clever they might have become?
Indeed but why would one want to.

Oh if software could *really* do that, the advantages would be enormous.
I honestly don't know where to begin to list them. If anyone is still
intersted when I come back from my swim, I will happily tell them.


But there is! Haven't your see CSI? All the digits of a license plate
can be resolved from just 3 pixels!

O yes! <g>

Coming back to a comment by rf about the need to enlarge images, I
mentioned it is really handy for when a blow up is needed for a print.
He was saying how his camera produced pretty good res. Well, sometimes
one does not own the camera or original materials.

I get a bit of commercial work involving preparing work for print
production and some of it involves photos, also some small time one off
jobs copying and enlarging. Often these jobs involve scanning small
material, the poor ones involve much retouching. But the enlarging
problem is an acute one and is controllable to an extent by what
Photoshop can interpolate and by my skills and time. The room to move is
not unlimited and so a judgement needs to be made about how big to
enlarge without a really noticeable drop in quality. I have discovered a
handy thing: often my clients are not as fussy as I am and that allows
me to go bigger than I am perfectly happy with! Anything for a buck!

So if software really could blow up things well, it would be very handy
indeed!

And even when you do have the camera, it is sometimes convenient to
limit the megapixels to get more on the storage you happen to have. You
shoot expecting for a monitor rather than print. But then unexpectedly
you have taken what you think later is a brilliancy. Pity it was not at
the best res!

--
dorayme

On 2009-02-20, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article <qhnnl.22127$cu.3835 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

It's a known issue that browsers do a poor job of resizing images

It's a known issue that nothing does much of a job at enlarging images.
There are some softwares about that make claims and perhaps I am not up
with how clever they might have become?

I think it is rather interesting issue actually! It seems to me to be in
principle impossible a task for a program that does not have human-like
intelligence and understanding.

Can a human generally improve an enlarged photograph by manually
retouching it better than a computer can by extrapolating between pixels?

In article <slrngpt39n.352.spamspam (AT) bowser (DOT) marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> wrote:

On 2009-02-20, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
In article <qhnnl.22127$cu.3835 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

It's a known issue that browsers do a poor job of resizing images

It's a known issue that nothing does much of a job at enlarging images.
There are some softwares about that make claims and perhaps I am not up
with how clever they might have become?

I think it is rather interesting issue actually! It seems to me to be in
principle impossible a task for a program that does not have human-like
intelligence and understanding.

Can a human generally improve an enlarged photograph by manually
retouching it better than a computer can by extrapolating between pixels?

Unskilled ones, no. But there are things that artists and those with
photoshop skills and a sense of what the picture is, what is important
about the bits, can do to improve on a robotic fixed general
interpolation. But it is very time consuming work and is generally not
commercially viable.

You can, of course, satisfy yourself that this is so by going to see
some huge (and I mean huge) photo realistic portrait painting. There are
some that the average punter would swear *were* photographs. And if a
photographer can tell it is not, that photographer could be more easily
fooled by one more stage, namely the photographing of it and the use of
some very very light pixel filtration.

In case anyone is not following the above: If an artist can paint a 9"
face and represent it at a couple of feet or more, he can do this to a
photograph.

Talking of filters, there are tricks and shortcut that delay the need
for hand work and can be good enough to enable a blow up to look not too
bad. Quite often, I rather prefer the result to the original, apart from
the size.

--
dorayme