Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]rei writes: > i agree, personally anything much less than > 600x400 is tough to appreciate. My original target was roughly 640x480, but examination of the logs and other stats reveals that most people (a little over half) are using 800x600 displays now, and since the purpose of a slideshow is to fill the screen with each image, I went with 800x600 as a standard. At 640x480, a lot of important details can degenerate into just a couple of pixels; it is, after all, some 36 times smaller than a 2700-dpi scan. > you get an indication of whether it's a > promising image, but you don't really > get to appreciate the sharpness or tonality. Yes, that's how a lot of galleries are. Some of them even sell photos; but when you can't see the photo in detail well enough to know what it depicts, it's hard to decide whether or not you want to _buy_ it. Either these people are afraid of copyright infringement, or they worry a bit too much about download times. > i suppose thumbnails linking to larger > images is a reasonable, if not troublesome, > compromise. The problem I've had with thumbnail sheets is that they start to take forever to download themselves, once you have more than a few images to show. I originally had thumbnails in my indexes for my main gallery, but it started taking so long to download that I just went with pure text descriptions. For slideshows, preloading images can help a lot.