I'm not sure I'm following this. Whatever happened to my and Moose's
concerns about dynamic resizing with no sharpening?
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/7/2013 7:40 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 1/7/2013 4:05 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>> Decent size.
>>> Not too attractive to me, as it means yet another down sample size and
>>> resharpening settings/masks.
>> Well, individuals can change the size in their own galleries,
>
> To quote Emily Litella, "Oh ... Never mind.".
>
>>> So as yet not up to the LUG implementation. It seems it gets around the
>>> template limits by opening a new
>>> browser window for the full size image.
>> ...
>> I need specifics on this. If LUG's standard width is greater then the
>> question is what happens to the thumbnails to the right.
>
> No, they are also 900. Jim described it well:
>
> On 1/6/2013 9:56 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>> Ken,
>>
>> The LUG defaults appear to be 900 x 720. I usually upload "landscapes" with
>> a width of 1000 or 1200. I upload "portraits" with a height of 800 or 900.
>>
>> The LUG gallery displays small overlapping rectangles top & bottom when the
>> uploaded image is larger than the default. You click on these to get the
>> full sized image. [In a new browser window.] I don't see these in your
>> arrangement. The default sized image is downsized and does lose a little
>> sharpness. The full sized image
>> is very sharp.
> ---------------------------------
>> I believe
>> that at this time we still need to support a viewing experience of
>> 1024 width. Many of us have old, ancient steam-powered iPads.
>
> The trend is to larger resolutions. :-)
>
> Trendless Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|