New Slideshow feature is nice! Thanks, Brian!

Discussion in ' Site Help' started by stevemarcus, Nov 22, 2005.

  1. Brian, the new Slideshow option for viewing folders is really nice.
    Thanks for adding this new feature.
  2. Can you add an option to disable resizing? Firefox uses bilinear interpolation which mucks things up.
  3. Not that it changes anything, but I meant nearest neighbor, not bilinear.
  4. Emre, it only resizes when the photo is too big for the browser window. That is, it resizes smaller, but never bigger. So the way to prevent resizing is to have a big enough window for the photos on display.

    Between some "mucking up" due to interpolation by the browser, and having to scroll to see the photo, I decided to go
    with the possibility of interpolation problems. In a slideshow, having to scroll the photos is really a drag.
  5. Nice feature, but I broke it. After finish at least one loop, click the first thumbnail from left on the top, the dispaly just go crazy. I am using IE 6.0.2800.1106.XPSP2.
  6. You are right; I did not realize it adapts to the size of the window.
  7. Tried it out and seems to work ok. Nice enhancement indeed!
  8. Best improvement in a long time, thank you very much!

  9. I agree the slideshow is a cool addition. I'm curious as to how the sequence of slides is
  10. Works fine now. Maybe just sensitive to certain size of the browser window.
  11. Brian, this is cool.
  12. Newest photos first.
  13. It's got some bugs, the interface is clunky (kind retro), there's no autoplay feature, the subscriber can't create the order in which the shots appear, or mix shots from different folders, BUT ... thanks, Brian - never expected something like this quite so quickly - very appreciated.
  14. There is an autoplay feature. The double arrow at top right.
    As for a retro look, as a whole has a retro look. The look is mostly controlled by a CSS stylesheet. If you want to send me a better one, I will look at it.
  15. It is a cool feature but does not work for me. It goes on and on saying *loading* (<100 Kb images from a small folder).

    Hope it will work someday.
  16. What browser are you using? It has been tested so far only with Internet Explorer 6 and Firefox 1.07 on Linux and Windows XP.
  17. Netscape (old versions) users will have problems like I did. No problems anymore.

    Really neat! Thanks!
  18. It is guaranteed not to work in Netscape 4 or earlier. This will never be fixed. The only older browser that I can get interested in is IE 5.5, and that is getting to be marginal.
  19. No go with Netscape 6.x. Firefox, AOK so is the IE (whatever that I sparingly use).
  20. Hi!
    I was excited to try this out but for some reason I cant see the feature...Do I need to do something first to my computer?

  21. Let me add my voice to those saying thanks for the slideshow feature. Its a wonderful upgrade to the site and is much appreciated.
  22. Go to one of your image folders, Laurie. The "Slideshow" link should be next to the "Options" and "Details" links just above and to the left of the thumbnail views of your images.
  23. Very, very cool feature, Brian. Would you mind looking at my Bulbs folder with the slideshow? I see these little white specks on my images that don't appear on any of the originals. Thanks for the feature and thanks for taking a look. I'm using IE6.
  24. It's AWESOME!
  25. yes , seems there are some white spots there Jamie, on a few photo's, but we are moving in the right direction , very nice work Brian~ GT
  26. Wow, this is fun. Works well on my Firefox and IE.

    Your slide show works for me Jamie. Very nice bulbs. They are like light bulbs and leave that after glow behind my eyes when one fades out to the next slide. Terrific example for the slide show.
  27. With what browser are you seeing white spots? If the photo is larger than your browser window, it will be sized down to fit. This is being done by the browser and it might be introducing some artifacts.

    I really like the slideshow feature myself. It took longer to develop than it might have, because I just spent a lot of time running it against various folders. Its nice to realize how many great photos and photographers we have on -- something that one can forget if you just look at thumbnails all day long. Made me kind of proud to be helping to bring these photographs to the world. Thanks, everybody.
  28. It really is a nice feature. I'm seeing the white specks with IE 6.0.2900...
  29. Brian, awesome addition. It's visually stimulating and extremely useful at the same time. Thanks for all that you do!
  30. I also see sporadic white specks on several images (IE6.0.)
  31. Compliments , Brian , for a great facility. You are a champ...
  32. I remember a recent time when poor Mr. B. Mottershead couldn't sell a share of his stock because the membership devalued it so severely -- and that was not so very long ago. It's interesting to watch this sea change of endorsements, especially now that so many 1s and 2s are gone. Interesting . . . How could so many people have sold him so short?

    John (Crosley)
  33. The white spots are not random, and only with IE. Always show at the same place and the original pixel was black. Looks like problem with overflow in the algorithm.
  34. The new icon.
  35. Yes! Thanks a lot Brian! That's cool!
  36. BUT the resize into a smaller size makes a lost of quality... looks pixelised.
  37. Mouse-over any tiny thumbnail will highlight a particular picture, but clicking it will only increment (or decrement) to the next picture, not the thumbnail highlighted. Is this behavior intended?
  38. Yes this a very cool feature indeed and I'm glad to see that an old aspiration of mine has finally became true! However, I also feel this loss of quality due to resizing on my Firefox browser.
  39. Hands down, this is the best single feature since I am around PN. Thanks Brian!

    Can I suggest two improvements?

    (1) Clicking on the image currently displayed enters the standard gallery page for the image (it will be terrific to have the slide show running and right-click to comment on the most interesting shots, rather than looking at thumbnails)

    (2) A possibility to slideshow a whole portfolio in addition to a single folder. This might be linked from the "all pictures" "most rated pictures" pages from a member as well as a link from a member community page.

    P.S. FWIW I am told it works on the latest Safari version
  40. Regarding loss of quality, there really aren't any good solutions.

    The images being sent down to the browsers are the "medium" views. These are the default images displayed on the photo page. If the original photo was too large (size and bytes), the medium view has been downsampled from the photographer's version by the server at upload time. The photographer's version is still available as the "Large" view, but this isn't what is sent down for the slideshow, unless it was already sized for web display and no medium view was created. Then, in the slideshow, to obviate scrolling, the photo may be further downsampled by the browser because the HTML/Javascript for the slideshow directs that it be sized to fit in the window.

    So, images will have gone through as many as two resamples, one when it was uploaded to, and one in the browser when it was displayed in the slideshow. The only way to avoid these is for the photographers to upload images that are sized for web display in the first place, with care taken to control artifacts. Then the server will not create a "medium" view, but will simply use the photographer's version by default on the Photo page and in the slideshow. Slideshow viewers then have to cooperate by having a good monitor, properly calibrated, with windows sized large enough so as not to cause any downsampling in the browsers.
  41. thanks Brian
  42. Hi Brian, first off I hope this is just taken as the feedback it's intended to be and not as nitpicking.
    This image, good or bad, was uploaded to fit without a PN resize. You'll notice there is no "larger" option. I use this shot as the example because it is by far the most speckled.
    The file attached here is part of a screen grab of the same picture in the slideshow. I have good quality, calibrated equipment and I see the same behaviour even if the window is maximized. I even went as far as to turn off the IE toolbars to make the viewable area for the slideshow as big as possible.
    I have also tried several recompressions of the same picture locally and never see the strange specks.
    Thanks, again.
  43. Brian,<br>
    I use 17" screens. The full size of the slideshow image gives a height of 571 pixels. Do you mean that is the largest size to upload into the best view in the slideshow?<br>
    Usually, I upload 600 pixels (sometimes 700) in height, it isn't a big difference. May be you could give the information in the uploading page? Just writing "to use the slideshow folder view in the best way, PN advices you to upload photos with less than 571 pixels in height".
  44. Thank you Brian... this is GREAT!
  45. Brian, thanks for the improvement (as I ve already written some posts up). Could it be done for the whole portfolio of a member and not only a folder?
  46. Yann, this is going to vary from person to person. resizes the uploaded photos if the width is greater than 680 pixels. This code was written when the most common monitor resolution was 800x600 pixels, which was only a year or two ago. 680 pixels for the photo width left room for vertical scroll bars, window borders, and a little bit for a left and right margin around the photo. Since then typical monitor resolutions have gotten higher, so 1024x768 is now the most common resolution. However 800x600 is still rather common, so I am not ready to change the 680-pixel width rule, yet.

    Now, the server doesn't downsample images that are 680 pixels or less in WIDTH. The HEIGHT plays no part in this, and a photo that was 680 pixels in width but immensely high would not be resized by the server. The assumption is that scrolling vertically is more or less acceptable, and that if photographers don't want people to have to scroll vertically, they can take this into account, but that doesn't resize photos to bring them to some target height, only a target width.

    However, in the slideshow code, the photos are being sized in the HTML/Javascript so that both the height and width fit in the browser window.

    The most usual resolution with a 17" monitor is 1024x768, and vertical real estate is the scarce resource. First the browser is going to take some of the 768 pixel height for its window title, top and bottom borders, menu bar, toolbars, tabs, status bar, and whatnot. That leaves a client area available for display of the slideshow page. Within this page the header is a fairly trim 60 pixels, and the thumbnails bar just below the header is another 50 pixels, for a total of 110 pixels. The bar at the bottom takes another 50 pixels or so. So one is getting down to a relatively small amount of vertical real estate, and even quite reasonable-sized portrait format images are going to get resized to be fully-displayed in the slideshow. A photo that had a typical 3:2 aspect ratio and was the recommended 680 pixels wide would be about 454 pixels high, and the height might not fit in what was left after the browser and the header, etc, chewed up the vertical real estate. So a photo that had escaped resizing when it was uploaded to would still get resized by the browser for the slideshow, even on an 17" monitor.
  47. Million Thanks, Brian!
  48. Vasilis, the next type of slideshow that I am going to implement is slideshows on presentations. This will give photographers the ability to decide which selections of photos they want in a slideshow, independent of how they have grouped them into folders. Also, presentations allow control of the order of the photos in the presentation/slideshow.

    After I see the impact on the bandwidth, I might implement other types of slideshows. I like slideshows. Wouldn't it be cool if every member could set up a "personal daily slideshow" with new work from favorite people, categories they are interested in, etc?
  49. That is a very nice idea about slideshow-presentations where someone can also include his favorite photos from Then we can stop the aesthetics - originality ratings as well. We will have only one's favourite photos and the most interesting photos in (based on how many people have it as a favourite) and everything will be perfect! :) (half, but only half, joking)
  50. Brian, I see that the pictures have become clickable. Thanks again.

    W.r.t. your last post, I think it would be great to be able to set up a personalised slide-show independent on the folder where the pictures sit, within the presentation framework. This is an excellent service to offer (...maybe one you want to advertise but keep for subscribers only?)

    Will you still allow the text we can now include in the presentations along with the thumbnails to be displayed somewhere in the slide-show page?

    Another wish. If that is not too cumbersome, a pop-down menu to choose among a few fixed inter-slide lag times, once the automatic loop feature is selected, would also be a great addition.
  51. I'll add myself to the list of people saying thanks for the slideshow, way cool! One observation that I did not spot here: the little window on the top left with the photographer name seems not to cope with non-7bit characters in the photographers name. For instance my first name - Håkan - (dependening on PC/browser) gets either muddled or shows up as H<box>n.
  52. I dig it too...
  53. gib


    thanks for this new function. looks great.

    I noticed one or two things I thought you might want to know or think about.

    First of all I am using Safari on an iBook.

    I wonder if there is anyway to show the caption of the photo?

    I also tried to click on the slideshow image to find out mor about the photo. When I hit the
    back button on my browser to return to the slide show, I got there but I couldnt get the
    slide show to continue. It would be nice to be able to click on the image look at the photo
    in detail then be able to return to the slideshow all in one browser window. I suppose I
    could right click on the image and open it in a new window to see the details, then close it
    or just return to the first window and return to the slide show.

    thanks again.
  54. I am having a problem and need a suggestion on a fix. When I click on slideshow on two of my folders, it says loading and nothing happens. The other folders work okay. Any ideas on how to fix?
  55. Love the slideshow, wish it used the larger versions of images though.
  56. Howard, which folders are the problem ones for you?
  57. gib


    here is a folder that also just say it is loading and never seems to finish loading
  58. OK, I see the problem. It is the apostrophe in the title. It might be a couple of days before I fix it because tomorrow I'm cooking and eating a turkey.
  59. Brian, you are amazing! Yes, it is the apostrophe in the title. The folders are 3 and 4. I took out the apostrophe and it worked. Enjoy your turkey day and thanks for the response.
  60. I spy with my little eye a SQL injection possibility...
  61. It is more of a Javascript injection possibility
  62. Hi Brian:
    This: "Wouldn't it be cool if every member could set up a "personal daily slideshow" with NEW work from favorite people, categories they are interested in, etc?"

    is a great idea! please, please implement! many thanks, Duncan.
  63. Gotta add my kudos for the slideshow. Nice feature, Brian. Thanks.
  64. Nice feature Brian. Thanks.
  65. Less mouse clicks, more HAPPY!
  66. LOVE the slideshow feature, Brian! Thanks!
  67. Mostly this very cool new feature works for me (thanks!), but I found some presentations that just stop at the "loading" point for me. They're the three on Richard Emslie's page, here.
    I'm running Mac OSX 10.3.9 on a G4 PowerBook, using Safari 1.3.2 and IE 5.2.3 (last version for the Mac). My only other browser is Lynx - not exactly designed for slideshows. ;-) Any ideas? I assume you can tell more of what's on the site than I can.

Share This Page