Image Sizes in G3 (poll)
|
ChrisJohnson00TA
Joined: 2004-03-15
Posts: 167 |
Posted: Mon, 2009-06-15 05:11
|
|
So, this may turn into a lobby of sorts to the G3 gods. First off, I know that G3 is designed around being simple and fast. G3 has 3 image sizes by design. Thumb, Resize and Full. This creates an issue for me, and possibly an issue for some of you as well. The issue is the full size image. Check it out - So, you are navigating your albums (you are seeing thumbs) and you click on an image. You are now seeing the resize. Now, you want a closer look, so you click on the image. This should bring you to a full browser resized image on your screen. Cool! What isn't cool, is that your full size image is actually the full size image. Think about that for a second. My images come from my 50D and are either RAW or full resolution JPG's in the realm of 15-20MB *EACH*. That's a LOT of bandwidth each time you click on that larger image. Am I crazy to want another image resize in G3? I've created a poll (WARNING, EXTERNAL CONTENT & LINK) http://www.2000transam.com/g3poll.html Please take the poll and tell me I've got something, or that I'm nuts. If you don't want to click the link, I understand - just reply here please. |
|
Posts: 167
Further thoughts are this:
If we had the ability to create a "larger" version of a resize, say, 1600 pixels, that would give 99% of users the same "feel" that there is now with the large image - without the bandwidth requirements on the web servers or hosts. 1600 pixels tall covers 1920x1200 displays and down from there and would use a fraction of the bandwidth a 15mp image would use.
I'd propose this to be a side wide integration, rather than a per album integration. It would fit with the current scheme of how the thumbs and resizes already work.
Also, there still needs to be an option to download the FULL resolution file (if it's RAW, JPG, etc) so that people can still have access to it if required / desired.
Posts: 25
I think once we have support for a large (large as opposed to original/full), then the system will handle multiple sizes after that.
Once it changes to 'many' then adding another size or 2 won't make any difference.
Posts: 167
I would tend to agree with you lysp, and I could also use that function.. however, my (heavy) concern is with the full/original file size download.
The issue with having several resizes is all the derivatives of the image that G3 will have to make and then keep track of, etc. I'm not one of the G3 gods, but, I'd like to keep the DB as lean as possible while also providing a fast browsing experience.
Posts: 25
But my situation is similar. I have an SLR and although i dont shoot in raw, the originals are still quite a large 10mp (5mb).
I have a preview size which is approx 700px which fits into the screen and a larger image for people who want a higher quality. And as i think i mentioned in the watermark thread, i need the larger image watermarked too.
Posts: 14
Could you use larger thumbnails and make the resize larger? Would still be watermarked.
Posts: 34
Why would you ever want to upload RAW files? Why would you ever want to upload the full size image? Just resize them before uploading.
Posts: 722
Personally, I upload the full size in case anyone wants to either print it out on a photo printer, or re-upload it to a professional printing service and order prints that way.
Posts: 167
Truly, this is why I upload my RAW or full resolution images as well. My gallery is used as an archive & backup for all of my work. Side benefit is that I can share it with the rest of the world.
Posts: 1
Is there any reason to think this is in the works for the G3 release? I can't find much information about features intended for release.
I think this is a major issue - basing slideshow and lightboxes on the full size image is horribly wasteful of bandwidth, but having the full size image available is also necessary. Personally, I would like to see adjustable sizes for all image sizes, but I'm not sure 'many' sizes are needed.
For me, thumbnail, slideshow, and full are all that I would think would be needed. I'm fine with having the 'single image' page be a browser-downsized version of the slideshow/lightbox size (which should be, say, 1900x1200 ish), as then if/when the user enters lightbox/slideshow, the image should already be cached locally, leading to a better view experience.