The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What size are photo's reduced too? I know the biggest you can upload is 1000px along the biggest length, so I reduced mine to 800x600, but when I view them they are still getting reduced down to 600 or so along the longest length. This just seems odd? If they are uploaded at a size of less than 1000px can't they just be shown at full size?
I'm using a resolution of 1024x768 (which I'm guessing is the minimum that anyone would have now), so an 800x600 photo would fit in fine. Shrinking them down again just makes them look poo.
I'm using a resolution of 1024x768 (which I'm guessing is the minimum that anyone would have now), so an 800x600 photo would fit in fine. Shrinking them down again just makes them look poo.
Heh, cheers. I had nearly 500 pictures from that saturday, and ended up putting those 30-odd up. Still the sunday pictures to go. I need a lot more practice. Only had it since just before Christmas.
I think I'll leave the pictures in that resolution and will await the changes with baited breath!
I think I'll leave the pictures in that resolution and will await the changes with baited breath!
Some nice pictures there taken with a nice 400D!
Those images were uploaded at 800 x 600px. Javascript is indeed scaling them to fit within the browser window. For example the first image in that gallery is 800px × 600px and scaled to 508px × 351px to fit in the browser window at a screen resolution at 1024 x 768px. It tries to scale the image to fit with a gap all around it whatever the screen resolution. I'm not sure I can change this for this display method as proportional resizing might get a little complicated for weird resolutions like 1440 x 900 (widescreen 19").
This is why I'm think some other gallery display layout are needed.
Refinements to the gallery are in the first stage of changes, which I started working on last week. This includes a lot of other minor changes and improvements so I'm afraid I can't put a definite time-scale on this.
Those images were uploaded at 800 x 600px. Javascript is indeed scaling them to fit within the browser window. For example the first image in that gallery is 800px × 600px and scaled to 508px × 351px to fit in the browser window at a screen resolution at 1024 x 768px. It tries to scale the image to fit with a gap all around it whatever the screen resolution. I'm not sure I can change this for this display method as proportional resizing might get a little complicated for weird resolutions like 1440 x 900 (widescreen 19").
This is why I'm think some other gallery display layout are needed.
Refinements to the gallery are in the first stage of changes, which I started working on last week. This includes a lot of other minor changes and improvements so I'm afraid I can't put a definite time-scale on this.
My site
Not sure what resolution you're on, but when I look at the A1GP pictures at home (with a screen resolution of 1024x768) the java resizes them to 6oo-odd, and so they look a little weird.
I was hoping I could upload an 800x600 image and have that displayed at 100% regardless of the resolution of the viewer.
You mentioned that you're considering different layouts - any news on when this may come into effect?
Not sure what resolution you're on, but when I look at the A1GP pictures at home (with a screen resolution of 1024x768) the java resizes them to 6oo-odd, and so they look a little weird.
I was hoping I could upload an 800x600 image and have that displayed at 100% regardless of the resolution of the viewer.
You mentioned that you're considering different layouts - any news on when this may come into effect?
I'm not sure that's necessary but you can try and see if the results are to your satisfaction.
I upload photos to my gallery and one, for example, was greater than the 1024 x 1024px maximum.
On viewing the page in Firefox the image properties show: 1024px × 680px (scaled to 959px × 607px). This means the the uploader resized the image to fit within the 1024 x 1024px restriction and then Javascript resized it again to fit within my browser window. Viewing it this was look fine to me!
I upload photos to my gallery and one, for example, was greater than the 1024 x 1024px maximum.
On viewing the page in Firefox the image properties show: 1024px × 680px (scaled to 959px × 607px). This means the the uploader resized the image to fit within the 1024 x 1024px restriction and then Javascript resized it again to fit within my browser window. Viewing it this was look fine to me!
So I really need to resize my images down to 600px along the longest length to guarantee that they will come up at 100% regardless of the resolution of the viewer. I'm ignoring 800x600 resolutions here as I can't think anyone still uses that.
The images are resized proportionally so that the largest dimension is equal or less the the allowed maximum. These images are then thumbnailed to fit within 100 x 100px dimensions. When the images are displayed on a gallery page the thumbnails are displayed with no resizing and the main image is displayed using Javascript to popup the image. The Javascript is resizes the image to fit within the browser window, minus 20 px or so around the edges so that the image is centred and takes account of browser toolbars etc.
We are considering designing several layouts for the gallery pages and this could include the ability to display the full size images in different ways.
We are considering designing several layouts for the gallery pages and this could include the ability to display the full size images in different ways.
What size are photo's reduced too? I know the biggest you can upload is 1000px along the biggest length, so I reduced mine to 800x600, but when I view them they are still getting reduced down to 600 or so along the longest length. This just seems odd? If they are uploaded at a size of less than 1000px can't they just be shown at full size?
I'm using a resolution of 1024x768 (which I'm guessing is the minimum that anyone would have now), so an 800x600 photo would fit in fine. Shrinking them down again just makes them look poo.
I'm using a resolution of 1024x768 (which I'm guessing is the minimum that anyone would have now), so an 800x600 photo would fit in fine. Shrinking them down again just makes them look poo.