Subject:
|
Re: scans for 4239
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:39:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
591 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.database, Dan Boger writes:
> Cary Clark <cary@corp.nospamwebtv.net> wrote:
> > I noticed that 4239 doesn't have a picture, so I scanned the polybag
> > (much harder to do than I imaged) and uploaded it here:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=4327
> > I poked around but didn't find the instructions for how to submit an
> > image. I noticed that images in the set database are shown at around
> > 400x300, 200x150 and 80x60, so I created those sizes. Do you auto-scale
> > images on the fly for small views and thumbnail views? Do you have a
> > target for how big the images should be? Mine are 39K, 9K and 2.5K; are
> > these the sizes you're looking for?
>
> thanks! picture uploaded. From what I know, the thumbnails are
> generated automagically by the server... so the original should be (imo)
> as large as is reasonable...
that's right.
> I guess I usually try to get the width of the picture around
> 400-500, but that's just me...
another way to look at it is: it depends on what the image's contents call for.
there's a point where a larger image isn't better, just bigger. Likewise, an
image should have enough info so there isn't a big question, like, "what is
that?" stick with common sense and you'll be fine.
and thanks for your help.
-Suz
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: scans for 4239
|
| (...) thanks! picture uploaded. From what I know, the thumbnails are generated automagically by the server... so the original should be (imo) as large as is reasonable... so when people do want to see more detail than the thumbnail, they should have (...) (24 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
