> Moose wrote:
> Well, apparently not. It displays full size, in original
> proportion, on the three major browsers I have.
>
> What browser are you using?
IE and Firefox on three different machines (two differently
screened laptops, and a PC, but otherwise similarly configured).
Unfortunately I recently wiped Netscape and Opera, not having used
them for some time. I could reboot one in Ubuntu, but that is just
Firefox as well.
> Yes, I know what's in there, it's hand written code and
> virtually all my web images are either 840 pixels wide for
> landscape or 760 high for portrait orientation
...and indeed the jpg referenced is of these dimensions (840x553),
but not being displayed *within the webpage* in these dimensions,
but at the HTML-coded 860x660. That is, I believe your HTML
code is doing exactly what you tell it to do (displaying the
image at 860x660), but the jpg itself is actually of those
different dimensions (840x553) and thus is being stretched
to different degrees along both dimensions within the webpage.
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Sierras/Siltrees.htm
It should be possible to see this by having one browser window open
with the above webpage in it, and another open with just the jpg itself
in it:
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Sierras/siltrees.jpg
and comparing their respective sizes.
(Sorry if I'm repeating what you already understood I was saying
- I have a tendency to worry my explanations like a dog at a bone,
completely through chronic self-doubt.)
Note, the reason I notice this is I have a tendency to use Firefox
to right-click on an image and hit "View Image" to see the image
in isolation of anything else. If I didn't do this, it is highly
unlikely I would have noticed the horizontal compression. Once seen
though, I get the option of choosing. :-)
I only mention it in case the way you have sized the jpg is more
important
to you than the way you've coded the HTML to display it, and whether
the differences matter to you. It is also impossible for anything I
say to matter, if how the above two links render are no different to
you (ie. none of the other OM folk verify what I'm talking about, and
even confirm your experience). If no-one else verifies what I've said
(and
even then, depending on what floats your boat <g>), then please consider
everything I've just said at the very least irrelevant white noise
(hell, why not, I do myself most of the time ;-) ) if not outright
wrong.
Cheers,
Marc (stewing in self-doubt and feared irrelevance)
Sydney, Oz
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
