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

On 02/18/09 09:41 pm, MISS CHIEVOUS wrote:

[...] incorporate PANORAMIC (and other extremely
W-I-D-E images) into their HTML pages _without_ having to thumbnail
the images . . . and then refer the visitor to click to see the
graphic in full.

The example provided below consists of two graphics, each labeled so
you can immediately perceive the concept of the page:

Browsers have one criterion when adjusting the dimensions of an image:

speed. That's why images look so poorly when not rendered in their default
dimensions. The methods you suggest require non-default image dimensions
and, hence, poor presentation.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

In article <QdOdnTNDgNs9aQDUnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com>,
Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN (AT) sohnen-moe (DOT) com> wrote:

Browsers have one criterion when adjusting the dimensions of an image:
speed. That's why images look so poorly when not rendered in their default
dimensions.

This is not really true. Images look fairly quickly bad when enlarged
beyond their native dimensions for the reason that information is thinly
spread and only an intelligent thing like a human artist can fix this
fault up by extrapolation.

--
dorayme

On 2009-02-20, dorayme wrote:

In article <QdOdnTNDgNs9aQDUnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com>,
Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN (AT) sohnen-moe (DOT) com> wrote:

Browsers have one criterion when adjusting the dimensions of an image:
speed. That's why images look so poorly when not rendered in their default
dimensions.

This is not really true. Images look fairly quickly bad when enlarged
beyond their native dimensions for the reason that information is thinly
spread and only an intelligent thing like a human artist can fix this
fault up by extrapolation.

That depends on the image. Some images (primarily JPEGs) enlarge
quite well, even with a browser.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

In article <b93dc$499e1e9c$cef88ba3$14340 (AT) TEKSAVVY (DOT) COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On 2009-02-20, dorayme wrote:
In article <QdOdnTNDgNs9aQDUnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com>,
Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN (AT) sohnen-moe (DOT) com> wrote:

Browsers have one criterion when adjusting the dimensions of an image:
speed. That's why images look so poorly when not rendered in their default
dimensions.

This is not really true. Images look fairly quickly bad when enlarged
beyond their native dimensions for the reason that information is thinly
spread and only an intelligent thing like a human artist can fix this
fault up by extrapolation.

That depends on the image. Some images (primarily JPEGs) enlarge
quite well, even with a browser.

And it depends on the % enlargements. I am only talking big %
enlargements. In fact I am a bit of a fan of allowing some modest
stretch.

--
dorayme