 | | Thumbnails...
|
| Hi, Is there a "proper" way to create thumbnails? Basically, what I do is transfer the 640x480 image from my camera to my computer. Then I create another version of the image (say, 50% of the original 320x240). Finally, on my page I'll have the (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Thumbnails...
|
| I think what you are doing is correct... or at least it is what I do :-). You can saze your self a little time by getting a shareware of freeware package which allows you to do all this "automatically" - one I have even made a tray at outputing the (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Thumbnails...
|
| (...) If you want to save downloading time for the page-viewer, then that is the best way to do it. Some people use the 'width' attribute to show a thumbnailed image, but it still downloads the full image and scales it down to match the width. So if (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Thumbnails...
|
| (...) Right. The width tag isn't really meant for scaling. It exists so that the page layout engine can know how big a graphic is going to be before loading it. Making separate thumbnail images is The Right Way. (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Thumbnails...
|
| (...) Agreed. Further, in your example, you're going from 640x480 to 320x240 (2:1)in your reduced image. Consider getting more aggressive in your size reduction, the point of a thumbnail is to have lots and lots of them on a page and then follow (...) (24 years ago, 3-Jul-00, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Thumbnails...
|
| (...) There are really 2 reasons why you would never want the HTML engine to do your scaling. First, as has been stated, you have do download the whole image anyway. Second: Scaling w/o touchup can render some blurry/fuzzy and generally horrible (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.publish)
| |
