mmmee Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 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 photo.net -- 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnicholson Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 It really is a nice feature. I'm seeing the white specks with IE 6.0.2900... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsontsoi Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Brian, awesome addition. It's visually stimulating and extremely useful at the same time. Thanks for all that you do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsontsoi Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I also see sporadic white specks on several images (IE6.0.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whinterberger Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Compliments , Brian , for a great facility. You are a champ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncrosley Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yongbo Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yongbo Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 The new icon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Yes! Thanks a lot Brian! That's cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 BUT the resize into a smaller size makes a lost of quality... looks pixelised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexguerra Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 <p> Yes this a very cool feature indeed and I'm glad to see that an <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E0oE"> old aspiration</a href> of mine has finally became true! However, I also feel this loss of quality due to resizing on my Firefox browser. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salvatore.mele Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 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 photo.net 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 photo.net, 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 photo.net 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasilis Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 thanks Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnicholson Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Hi Brian, first off I hope this is just taken as the feedback it's intended to be and not as nitpicking. <p> <A href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3546816">This image</A>, 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. <p> 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. <p> I have also tried several recompressions of the same picture locally and never see the strange specks. <p> Thanks, again.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfochoa Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Thank you Brian... this is GREAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasilis Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Yann, this is going to vary from person to person. photo.net 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 photo.net 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 photo.net 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 photo.net 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 photo.net slideshow page. Within this page the photo.net header is a fairly trim 60 pixels, and the thumbnails bar just below the photo.net 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 photo.net header, etc, chewed up the vertical real estate. So a photo that had escaped resizing when it was uploaded to photo.net would still get resized by the browser for the slideshow, even on an 17" monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uspandey Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Million Thanks, Brian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 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 photo.net member could set up a "personal daily slideshow" with new work from favorite people, categories they are interested in, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vasilis Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 That is a very nice idea about slideshow-presentations where someone can also include his favorite photos from photo.net. Then we can stop the aesthetics - originality ratings as well. We will have only one's favourite photos and the most interesting photos in photo.net (based on how many people have it as a favourite) and everything will be perfect! :-) (half, but only half, joking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salvatore.mele Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now