large images and the web

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

jjs - 22 Mar 2005 22:22 GMT

Rafe - about putting up large images on the web.
Is this a fair start?

http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/z2/mirror.html

or

http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/z3/farmers.html

Pardon the crummy flatbed scans.

Reply to this Message

Bakhuys - 22 Mar 2005 22:48 GMT

> Rafe - about putting up large images on the web.
> Is this a fair start?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Pardon the crummy flatbed scans.

look here.

http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/delft2.htm

Reply to this Message

jjs - 22 Mar 2005 23:17 GMT

> look here.
>
> http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/delft2.htm

Yep. What do you think? It is very easy to set-up. Do you know if there is a
way to slow the zoom?

Reply to this Message

Bakhuys - 23 Mar 2005 11:36 GMT

>> look here.
>>
>> http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/delft2.htm
>
> Yep. What do you think?

I think it's a fair start ;-).

Reply to this Message

rafeb - 22 Mar 2005 23:06 GMT

> Rafe - about putting up large images on the web.
> Is this a fair start?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Pardon the crummy flatbed scans.

That's pretty impressive. I'd be a bit cautious
about relying on Flash, though.

Seems to work over here. I've bookmarked it,
and the link to "zoomify" also.

Most browsers will happily zoom a simple JPG,
if it's too large for the browser window.

The bridge photo you posted the other day was
a collection of slices, so that wouldnt' work.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Reply to this Message

jjs - 22 Mar 2005 23:20 GMT

>> Rafe - about putting up large images on the web.
>> Is this a fair start?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> That's pretty impressive. I'd be a bit cautious
> about relying on Flash, though.

I'm naturally concerned about using any plug-in, but Flash is everywhere -
about the most commonly installed plugin around. What are your particular
reservations? Trojan horses?

> Most browsers will happily zoom a simple JPG,
> if it's too large for the browser window.

Unfortunately, the browser still has to eat the whole cookie. These are
large images.

> The bridge photo you posted the other day was
> a collection of slices, so that wouldnt' work.

As I recall I did that on a Friday afternoon. That's my excuse and I'm
sticking to it.

Reply to this Message

rafeb - 23 Mar 2005 00:57 GMT

> "rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message

>>Most browsers will happily zoom a simple JPG,
>>if it's too large for the browser window.
>
> Unfortunately, the browser still has to eat the whole cookie. These are
> large images.

For a commercial photo site you've got
a few conflicting objectives. You wanna
show a big image, but no so big that it's
worth stealing off the web.

If it was an image that I wanted to sell,
I wouldn't post it at anything larger than,
say, "a few hundred by a few hundred" pixels.

IOW, the JPG from the web wouldn't ever look
good in print beyond 2" x 3" or so.

JPG compression is impressive. 10:1 still
gives a pretty nice image, fine for the web
anyway if you're not looking too critically.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Reply to this Message

jjs - 23 Mar 2005 01:21 GMT

> For a commercial photo site you've got
> a few conflicting objectives. You wanna
> show a big image, but no so big that it's
> worth stealing off the web.

Good point, Rafe. My whole life is in the academic realm where we blissfully
release content just hoping that people honor copyrights. If they don't, we
send Guido out to break their legs. Don't I wish.

Best,
John

Reply to this Message