Subject:
|
Re: Thumbnails...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:26:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
603 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Miller writes:
> Making separate thumbnail images is The Right Way.
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
them to what you want to see. Try 128x96 (5:1) for your thumbnail, and also try
using a lossy-er compression factor, if you're using a jpeg. That will really
speed up load time
Thumbsplus is well regarded, or was last time I investigated this, and can do a
bunch of pics for you with you controlling the scaledown AND the lossyness.
NB: I don't use thumbnails, but that's because I'm lazy. They're actually a
good thing. So do as I say, not as I do.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
