Picture Size

Craig A Davidson · Post by **Craig A Davidson** » 10 Jun 2005 2:25 am

What do I need to do to get the pictures and messages sized down so I don't need to take a lunch to look at a guitar fron side to side? Thanks

------------------
1985 Emmons push-pull,Evans SE200,Hilton pedal, Jag Wire Strings

Roger Kelly · Post by **Roger Kelly** » 10 Jun 2005 5:28 am

Resize your pictures for 500 x 400 pixels like this one.

Or, better yet, set your digital camera for 640 x 480 pixels, before you take your pictures, and you won't need to resize after you get it on your hard drive, in most cases........ Like this one.

[This message was edited by Roger Kelly on 10 June 2005 at 06:35 AM.]

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 10 Jun 2005 11:12 am

One way to do it is to set the image display width in HTML. I do this sometimes when someone posts a too-wide image. Instead of using the UBB Code IMG tag, you write HTML that looks something like this:

<img src="http://b0b.com/b0bxicon.gif" width="500">

The browser viewing the image will scale it down (or up!) to a width of 500 pixels. The image file takes just as long to download (it hasn't been changed), but it is displayed at a different size. Like this:

------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/b0bxicon.gif" border="0"> Bobby Lee
-b0b- quasar@b0b.com 
System Administrator 
My Blog

Russ Wever · Post by **Russ Wever** » 10 Jun 2005 11:33 am

Craig
Irfanview is a photo viewer/editor that I find indispenable and very easy to use.
It is handy for resizing (whether individual pics, or in batches) images. It is a free download.
~Russ

Craig A Davidson · Post by **Craig A Davidson** » 10 Jun 2005 12:36 pm

Roger I was talking about others pictures. Like guitars for sale on here that are almost life size or so it seems. Russ, I'll try your suggestion.

Roger Kelly · Post by **Roger Kelly** » 10 Jun 2005 1:33 pm

Craig, sorry I misunderstood your question.
If you find out how to reduce someone else's picture post on here, let me know too. b0b probably knows how.

Craig A Davidson · Post by **Craig A Davidson** » 10 Jun 2005 4:03 pm

Roger it is almost like a setting got tweaked. It just started happening a little bit back.

Michael Winslow · Post by **Michael Winslow** » 11 Jun 2005 11:24 am

If you have windows xp.....right click on the photo and select..."open with Windows Picture and Fax Viewer" from the menu that appears. That should do it...there are also zoom in and out icons at the bottom of the page.....also if you've got a large photo that's an attachment....save it in "my pictures" and then follow the above instructions. And if you wanted to change the viewing size one of the steels pictured above...right click on it and choose "save as" - then save it in "my pictures" and edit using the Picture and Fax viewer.[This message was edited by Michael Winslow on 11 June 2005 at 12:28 PM.]

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 12 Jun 2005 6:52 am

What do I need to do to get the pictures and messages sized down so I don't need to take a lunch to look at a guitar fron side to side...........I was talking about others pictures. Like guitars for sale on here that are almost life size or so it seems

There's really nothing to be gained by attempting to manipulate images before they're downloaded. All the data contained in the original image will be downloaded, regardless of how you display it.

Beyond making sure your system is operating properly, and your internet connection is performing to spec, there's not much you can do to speed up downloading an image.[This message was edited by Dave Potter on 14 June 2005 at 06:01 AM.]

Roger Kelly · Post by **Roger Kelly** » 12 Jun 2005 9:58 am

Here is an example of what I think you may be refering to about size. It has not been sized down to fit properly.

It is my understanding that only the sysop can fix it once it has been posted on here.
How about it b0b?
[This message was edited by Roger Kelly on 12 June 2005 at 11:01 AM.][This message was edited by b0b on 13 June 2005 at 05:05 PM.]

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 12 Jun 2005 11:48 am

No, you can edit it yourself if you want. Click "edit" on this post to see how it's done. The key to it is to set width="500".

------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/b0bxicon.gif" border="0"> Bobby Lee
-b0b- quasar@b0b.com 
System Administrator 
My Blog

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 12 Jun 2005 1:33 pm

How does the height get changed if you use the "set width" statement only?

What's locking the aspect ratio?

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 12 Jun 2005 7:28 pm

The browser maintains the aspect ratio of the image if you leave out the height.

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 13 Jun 2005 4:21 am

I see. Interesting. I didn't know that.

In Photoshop (and others, probably) you have to tell it if you want to keep the same aspect ratio or something different.

Makes sense that a browser wouldn't need that, since it's not an imaging app.

Jeff Agnew · Post by **Jeff Agnew** » 13 Jun 2005 5:44 am

since most web browsers aren't capable of displaying more than 216 colors, there are techniques (software) available to process an image to make it "web safe" by dithering (changing to the nearest, web safe colors)

You're saying that a web browser dithers JPGs?

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 13 Jun 2005 10:42 am

You're saying that a web browser dithers JPGs

I did a bit of googling and find that the latest browsers now support up to 16bit color, so browser dither isn't as much an issue as it used to be, when they only could display at 8bit color depth, which I was referring to earlier.

But, if an image is created at a higher color depth than browsers can display, e.g., 24 or 32bit color, the browser will dither them.

Processing images to reduce file size without significant loss of quality prior to publishing on the web is still a valuable technique to minimize download times, however. [This message was edited by Dave Potter on 13 June 2005 at 02:36 PM.]

Jeff Agnew · Post by **Jeff Agnew** » 13 Jun 2005 2:12 pm

I did a bit of googling and find that most browsers nowadays support up to 16bit color

I'd be interested to see a list or information about the maximum color depth browsers support. Could you provide a link, perhaps?

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 13 Jun 2005 4:04 pm

Browsers support the color depth of the platform they run on.

Years ago, many people had 256-color ("8 bit") Windows machines. Netscape developed a 216-color palette and encouraged people to use it. Any 16 or 24 bit images (including all JPEGs) were dithered down to those 216 colors if the platform was in 8-bit mode.

Today, very few people run 8-bit color. It's almost obsolete. There's no need to dither JPEG images anymore.

------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/b0bxicon.gif" border="0"> Bobby Lee
-b0b- quasar@b0b.com 
System Administrator 
My Blog[This message was edited by b0b on 13 June 2005 at 05:06 PM.]

Dave Potter · Post by **Dave Potter** » 14 Jun 2005 4:24 am

I was unable to find any information on browser color support, but this link addresses some of these issues:

http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/322747.html

A web search for "browser dither" will return a huge number of hits, but, as b0b pointed out, it's mostly related to 8bit, older systems.

This is a hobby for me, not a living, obviously.[This message was edited by Dave Potter on 14 June 2005 at 07:02 AM.]

Jeff Agnew · Post by **Jeff Agnew** » 14 Jun 2005 6:10 am

Browsers support the color depth of the platform they run on.

Exactly so.

Thanks for the link, Dave. I'm aware of that page; just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 14 Jun 2005 12:28 pm

A web search for "browser dither" will return a huge number of hits, but, as b0b pointed out, it's mostly related to 8bit, older systems.

As it should be. There is no need to dither to similate colors on a "true color" system, and most computers today display "true color".

This is a hobby for me, not a living, obviously.

I dithered for a living in the '80s and early '90s, before operating systems supported true color displays. I wrote dithering algorithms in assembly language for some of the first color printers. It was fun at the time, but I'm glad that I don't have to think about color mapping any more.

The only thing I really miss about the old 256-color systems it is color map cycling - a very cool retro animation effect. You could change the colors of all of the pixels on the screen by changing the 256-color lookup table. We did some pretty fancy things by drawing with a subset of the color map, then cycling the color table entries in just that part of the map. Now it's all gone, just like ANSI BBS screens [sigh...].

------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/b0bxicon.gif" border="0"> Bobby Lee
-b0b- quasar@b0b.com 
System Administrator 
My Blog

James Stewart Jr · Post by **James Stewart Jr** » 14 Jun 2005 4:22 pm

I am running Windows 98SE with AOL 8.0 Plus .
My question is this . The other day someone sent me some pictures that were so large I need 4 monitors to view the picture. How do I shrink them down so they are not so large.
I have the photo's stored in my hard drive.
Thanks James

------------------
1975 Sho~Bud Pro III Custom (8-7)
1981 Peavey Session 500

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 15 Jun 2005 2:36 pm

I use Irfanview to view large pictures.