Jump to content

Image resize


Guest Jaggi

Recommended Posts

Why was it decided to base of screen resoultion and not general image size anyway?



Because the function is javascript based, with the *only* intention to prevent distortion of the layout.

This quite seemingly simple function is becoming more and more complex to please everyone. :whistle:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure something like this has been suggested before. I haven't looked through all posts in regards to this topic, so I don't know for sure.

I see this as being the best "possible" solution. I say possible because I'm not sure if it can be done or not. In your image resize options add two settings. One takes a number and the other is a dropdown with "Percentage" or "Pixels". This way if you wanted 50% of the screen resolution, you could specify it. It would work the same if you wanted 500 px. I see this as being necessary to accommodate the differences between fixed width and percentage width boards. If you have a fixed width board and a user with a high resolution, you're still going to distort the layout of the board when a large image is used. The same could hold true for a user with a lower resolution and fixed width image restrictions.

I see this as being able to satisfy everyone. If it's not possible, I'm sure some modder will find a work around before too awful long after it is released.

Just my 2 cents. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure something like this has been suggested before. I haven't looked through all posts in regards to this topic, so I don't know for sure.



I see this as being the best "possible" solution. I say possible because I'm not sure if it can be done or not. In your image resize options add two settings. One takes a number and the other is a dropdown with "Percentage" or "Pixels". This way if you wanted 50% of the screen resolution, you could specify it. It would work the same if you wanted 500 px. I see this as being necessary to accommodate the differences between fixed width and percentage width boards. If you have a fixed width board and a user with a high resolution, you're still going to distort the layout of the board when a large image is used. The same could hold true for a user with a lower resolution and fixed width image restrictions.



I see this as being able to satisfy everyone. If it's not possible, I'm sure some modder will find a work around before too awful long after it is released.



That's basically what I said :).

There should be two textboxes, one for signatures and one for posts. Entering a 0 in either box would disable the system for either signatures or posts. Entering a number would set a cut-off of that many pixels, and entering a number with a percent sign would set a cut-off of that percentage of the browser window width. Furthermore, clicking on "show full size image" should trigger an AJAX function instead of opening a new window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I have a different understanding, but I thought it resized based on the area of the web browser, not really the screen resolution. If you have your screen set to a high rez but your browser is only filling half the screen, the image size will be set by the area available in the browser. I understand you guys want some control, but I think of this as a truly one size fits all feature that I'm looking forward to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I have a different understanding, but I thought it resized based on the area of the web browser, not really the screen resolution. If you have your screen set to a high rez but your browser is only filling half the screen, the image size will be set by the area available in the browser. I understand you guys want some control, but I think of this as a truly one size fits all feature that I'm looking forward to.


To do that, it would have to dynamically resize all posted images if you change the size of your browser window. Imagine how crazy that would be if you drag the size of the window bigger and smaller. The current implementation is a better solution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Could be a great feature, but yet again the on/off debate has been put on it so no chance it will be fixed now. Here is what needs to be done with this thing. Apply the same layout on re sizes images as you do with attach images. Include a link to the image full size. In RC1 it puts a stupid water mark (click for full size) in the bottom right hand side. On top of the black bar on top.

having it set to the windows size is bad idea because just because someone has a screen of 1360x1024 does not mean the browser window is max out to that size. This would still cause the layout to break. It should be base on % of the browser window the same way the layout works. In which case the image would move base on that. However this could cause problems to, so your better off making it a standard size set in the ACP just like the attachment system works.

On signatures, this feature should not be apply. There is a mod out for 2.1 that prevents a user from posting a image bigger then a size set in the ACP as well as number of lines, and number of images and the total size of that image. I would like to see this type of feature apply to 2.2 Also have it where the settings can be different for each group set in the group settings.

That is how it should be done. The way its done now makes it just another useless feature. I can bet that if it makes it to final the way it is now, chances are 90% of the users will turn it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a setting to determing the percentage in the ACP - so you control what percentage to resize after. I've found up to 80% is usually acceptable without breaking the post layout, at least at my resolution.

Everyone has different ideas about how this should work. Quite frankly, it was intended to be a simple protection for linked images so they wouldn't drastically break your layout. On 2.1 and below, you could use the img tags to link to a 1280x1024 image, and your screen would get stretched out - the admin could do nothing about this. Now, you can have the image auto shrink to a specified percentage of the window. I don't see how that's such a bad thing? Again, though, there is a setting to turn it off.

And the reason for the floating "Click to view full sized image" is because you can wrap an img tag in a url tag, and suddenly the popup breaks (and behaves differently in different browsers). We had to do this so that you could still link images as you could in previous versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well bfarber it certainly isn't a bad idea, it's just there are better ways to achieve what you were trying to do.

But of course - having the option to be able to enable/disable this, as well as the option to set a percentage, hopefully that should keep most people happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a setting to determing the percentage in the ACP - so you control what percentage to resize after. I've found up to 80% is usually acceptable without breaking the post layout, at least at my resolution.



Everyone has different ideas about how this should work. Quite frankly, it was intended to be a simple protection for linked images so they wouldn't drastically break your layout. On 2.1 and below, you could use the img tags to link to a 1280x1024 image, and your screen would get stretched out - the admin could do nothing about this. Now, you can have the image auto shrink to a specified percentage of the window. I don't see how that's such a bad thing? Again, though, there is a setting to turn it off.



And the reason for the floating "Click to view full sized image" is because you can wrap an img tag in a url tag, and suddenly the popup breaks (and behaves differently in different browsers). We had to do this so that you could still link images as you could in previous versions.



I'd like to be able to set a size for signatures too, but that's a minor quibble. The new system is excellent :thumbsup:.

For future versions of IPB, I'm wondering if a more complex system is possible. Take the overall size of the browser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...