It is currently Wed, 26-09-18, 11:25 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue, 01-06-10, 11:00 GMT 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri, 03-04-09, 8:21 GMT
Posts: 219
t00fri wrote:
in Germany non-botanists (including myself) tend to use exclusively German names for plants. E.g. the first of your thumbs on the left is a Trollblume. I presume a chinese variety. In that case the Latin name is fortunately very similar: Trollius

If I find some extra time (towards the next weekend perhaps) I'll try to "Wiki" the German names I am aware of...
Thanks. I would appreciate that, but if you are short of time, I'd be happy to take the German names and try to track down the Latin myself (although it will obviously be easier for you if your search was to return lots of German language sites :wink: )

t00fri wrote:
I suspect you are not using the latest 3.6.3 version of Firefox, which is VERY fast and doesn't show that pathology of trying to relocate the view to the image that is being loaded. Due to the optimized preloading feature of the 3.6.x firefox, I can scroll the whole sequence of images without the slightest delay at any time! So what's the point? And my hardware is far from being state of the art. Actually, you are the first one to bring up this point at CM despite a fairly high image fraction in CM threads.
In fact I am using 3.6.3. I suspect your combination of broadband speed, graphics card and available RAM just makes your browser so fast to load that you don't notice the delays, etc..

t00fri wrote:
Finally, my images are always thumbs, except that my thumbs are not so small ;-) . You may check that by clicking one of my "kingsize" thumbs ...
I actually have no objections at all to 700px thumbnails (if in fact they ARE thumbnails), however, (and you're obviously not aware of this)... unfortunately your images are never thumbs. Whatever mechanism you are using to upload these images is in fact embedding FULLSIZED images in the thread and merely DISPLAYING them as 700px wide until clicked. They aren't actually thumbs at all, if you know what I mean. ie. The 700px limit is a display mechanism only.
You can confirm this by doing a "Save Page As Webpage, complete" (of the previous page) and then examine the "viewtopic.php_files" subfolder on your hard-disk. This will contain over 8MB of full sized images (not 700px thumbs) for the first page of this thread.
I converted these with Irfanview to true 700px thumbs which reduces the total size to about 1.9MB (down from over 8MB).
(I've replaced my previous tiny thumbnails with the Irfaview'd 700px versions, so if and when you save the page to the HD you'll be able to compare the file-size of my 700px thumbs with your "thumbs". :wink:)

(Sorry about the capitalization... it's for emphasis only ( I'm not shouting. :) )

t00fri wrote:
As to that "environmental" argument of yours, think one moment about the HUGE load from mp3 and mp4 music and videos being downloaded all the time from the net. My O(20) 700pix wide JPGs are really a vanishing perturbation to that effectively "unreducable" waste of resources.

... the "green" argument was a little tongue-in-cheek, although it all adds up doesn't it! :mrgreen:

t00fri wrote:
Last not least: unlike certain other sites :mrgreen: , we want to emphasize a certain spirit of freedom at CM! So people thinking strictly in environmental terms are most welcome to use tiny thumbs in their posts. Others -- like myself-- who think that instantaneous, eye-catching graphics is an essential visual pleasure, may use kingsize thumbs. In any case the largest thumb image width has to be 700pix.
As I said, nothing wrong with 700px thumbs IMO as that would only be 1.9MB for the thread, or maybe even less with your tools, however they aren't actually thumbs (as explained above).

Cheers
CC

_________________
CITIZENS OF CM - JOIN THE REVOLUTION
...black out your avatar
THE AVATARS ARE REVOLTING !!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue, 01-06-10, 17:04 GMT 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri, 31-08-07, 7:01 GMT
Posts: 4577
Location: Hamburg, Germany
CC,
Quote:
actually have no objections at all to 700px thumbnails (if in fact they ARE thumbnails), however, (and you're obviously not aware of this)... unfortunately your images are never thumbs.


This sounds very surprising, since in the post, the link points to a reduced image, indicated by an attached number _1,_2,_3... to the original file. Why should the full size be loaded if this has not been requested (by clicking)??

Anyway this is the official CM img display tool that has been installed by (our WEB-professional) Runar T. You get it in the write form by clicking "img" in the menu on top of the form.

Personally I find our tool way more convenient and not slower than e.g. what is available in shatters.net. Of course I also know how to hand make genuine thumbs. However, I simply don't have the time available to use this somewhat tedious procedure for as many as O(20) images...

Sorry, that's all I can say here.

Cheers,
Fridger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue, 01-06-10, 19:01 GMT 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri, 03-04-09, 8:21 GMT
Posts: 219
t00fri wrote:
CC,
Quote:
actually have no objections at all to 700px thumbnails (if in fact they ARE thumbnails), however, (and you're obviously not aware of this)... unfortunately your images are never thumbs.


This sounds very surprising, since in the post, the link points to a reduced image, indicated by an attached number _1,_2,_3... to the original file. Why should the full size be loaded if this has not been requested (by clicking)??
It certainly is very strange....and I agree with you that it shouldn't happen, especially as I'm sure that I haven't clicked on ALL your images, only some of them, yet every single inage is saved to disk as full-sized images.
Did you use the "save to disk" method to examine the file-sizes to confirm the same behaviour for your browser?

t00fri wrote:
Personally I find our tool way more convenient and not slower than e.g. what is available in shatters.net. Of course I also know how to hand make genuine thumbs. However, I simply don't have the time available to use this somewhat tedious procedure for as many as O(20) images...
Certainly I agree with you that it's far less tedious than the usual method of using external image hosting sites like Imageshack and constructing a URL tag to the fullsize image combined with an embedded thumbnail.

It's a bit of a mystery to me why the fullsize images are embedded. Maybe Runar can shed some light on this, but I haven't seen hime post for a while now (I think he's busy on other non-Celestia activities).

Cheers
CC

_________________
CITIZENS OF CM - JOIN THE REVOLUTION
...black out your avatar
THE AVATARS ARE REVOLTING !!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri, 04-06-10, 9:08 GMT 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri, 31-08-07, 7:01 GMT
Posts: 4577
Location: Hamburg, Germany
and more spring...

(click for big)
Image

Image

Image

Fridger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat, 05-06-10, 15:59 GMT 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri, 31-08-07, 7:01 GMT
Posts: 4577
Location: Hamburg, Germany
... and even more spring ;-)
(while training for our annual summer hikes in paradise (Engadin, Switzerland))
http://forum.celestialmatters.org/viewtopic.php?t=325

Flowering Landscapes

(click for big)
Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Enjoy,
Fridger


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group