Subject:
|
Re: Thumbnails...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:28:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3116 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Miller writes:
> Frank Buiting <frank.buiting@infopulse.nl> wrote:
> > So if you want to have a lot of pictures on one page, the 'width' attribute
> > of the IMG tag works fine but AFAIK it doesn't save on downloading time.
>
> 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.
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 images. On my site I have always scaled the original
image down to my thumbnail size then applied some type of image sharpening
(in my case, Unsharp mask in Photoshop, but I sure there is an equvalent
operation in most graphics packages).
Another reason to do seperate thumbnails is what Jakob Neilson calls Relavence
enhanced image reduction (and what I call resizing + cropping). see:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9611.html
So, as always, the method that requires the most work is the best
Jim
|
|
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. (26 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
|
|
|
|
