this becomes a non-CSS question, so I tread lightly. I use 'ImageMagick' and its command-line interface, convert, to do on-the-fly image manipulation in conjunction with upload forms. -Bob
Phillip Cavaco wrote: > Thanks a lot for helping. > > So the best thing to do isn't resizing images on the client side (CSS) but > doing it on the server side I think. Right? Using something to accomplish > that task. > > What do you suggest to do a resize on server side? I use linux and PHP. > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > On 2007/08/07 18:01 (GMT+0100) Phillip Cavaco apparently typed: > > >> As a big photography enthusiastic I care a lot about photos >> quality in my websites. >> > > I used to be a photographer. My sister still is professionally. > http://www.horsesites.com/r/ > > >> Imagine that I have a web page with 3 photos (original sizes are: 600x400 >> > ; > >> 353x200 ; 450x738) for example. >> > > >> If I want to display them with 100px height maximum, >> > > Why 100px? You don't know what size a px is (except those right in front of > your face). Here's a table showing how the size of px can vary: > http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/pixelsize.html > > The problem is that different environments have different px density > displays. Here's a table of the most common densities: > http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.html > > >> Doing this the width will adjust proportional. But this way the image get >> bad dimensions sometimes. Maybe that's because the original sizes, i.e, >> > when > >> readjusting width and the proportional height is a float number, when >> rounding it will make the distortion appear. I don't know if I was clear >> enough. >> > > The problem is there is only so much that can be done when insufficient px > are available to do the job. A 400x600 image held to only 100x150 has a mere > 6.25% of the original amount available to get the job done. That's a tough > order. > > >> - How do you guys deal with this situations? >> - Do you resize images manually to achive the best quality or is there a >> > hat > >> trick? >> > > There are programs that attempt to optimize images for the web. The "trick" > is to find an acceptable balance between quality and bandwidth consumption. > Too large an image size means too long a download time for low bandwidth > users (still most users). Too small an image size shortchanges those with > the > highest quality web surfing environment (high resolution, above 1280x1024 > normal aspect, or 1280x800 widescreen) by making the image too small to > visually detect any purported high quality. This is a problem with no good > solution in traditional technology. For the future. SVG holds promise of > solution. > -- > " It is impossible to rightly govern the world without > God and the Bible." George Washington > > Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 > > Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > > > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
