thumbnail and full size images

I have a hobby site, with a lot of pictures of family and various other
hobby group activities. I have always used 'the gimp' to create small
images, about 160x120 to display with a link to the real image if the caller
wants to see it. This way I can cut the bandwidth usage and allow the pages
to load faster, particularly for dial up users.

If I specify, for example, a 1600x1200 picture into a cell size of 160x120,
when does the compression take place? Does apache compress the image before
sending, or does the viewer's browser do the compression? Or can this be
controlled?

I would be a help if I did not have to create small images of everything,
but if the compression is done by the browser then I am still transmitting
the entire image, so I am not creating faster loading pages.

Thanks

Stuart

Stuart Miller

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:58:55 GMT, "Stuart Miller"
<> wrote:

> If I specify, for example, a 1600x1200 picture into a cell size of 160x120,
> when does the compression take place? Does apache compress the image before
> sending, or does the viewer's browser do the compression? Or can this be
> controlled?

The resizing is done by the browser. It is much better to supply a
correctly sized image. If resampling is a bother I have a Win32 program
that will resample and upload images. Check
<http://stevensaunderson.com/pickup.htm> if interested.

If you want to resample on the server it is easy with PHP provided the
GD image processing library is available on your server.

--
Steven

In article <>,
Steven Saunderson <> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:58:55 GMT, "Stuart Miller"
> <> wrote:
>
> > If I specify, for example, a 1600x1200 picture into a cell size of 160x120,
> > when does the compression take place? Does apache compress the image before
> > sending, or does the viewer's browser do the compression? Or can this be
> > controlled?
>
> The resizing is done by the browser. It is much better to supply a
> correctly sized image. If resampling is a bother I have a Win32 program
> that will resample and upload images. Check
> <http://stevensaunderson.com/pickup.htm> if interested.
>
> If you want to resample on the server it is easy with PHP provided the
> GD image processing library is available on your server.

Which is not a bad way to go I suppose, especially for the
thumbnails, you just load up the good bigger images. OP's example
is a bit frightening though! 1600 x 1200 indeed... In fact,
though, if the situation is not something very dynamic, and we
are taking just thumbnails and one enlargement, it is not a lot
of trouble to prepare high quality in a good photo editor and
load up the lot...

--
dorayme

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:01:47 +1000, dorayme
<> wrote:

> > If you want to resample on the server it is easy with PHP provided the
> > GD image processing library is available on your server.
>
> Which is not a bad way to go I suppose, especially for the
> thumbnails, you just load up the good bigger images. OP's example
> is a bit frightening though! 1600 x 1200 indeed...

I'd expect the 1600 x 1200 image file to be 100 times the size of a 160
x 120 image. This is horribly inefficient and unfortunately quite
common. Being a responsible citizen I have complained to some people
about their sites. So far I have a perfect record of annoying everybody
and achieving nothing.

I'm not recommending resizing on the fly as it is a nasty load for the
server. But it should be easy to write a PHP script that will accept
the details and then resize/resample the image and produce a small
version.

--
Steven

Steven Saunderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:58:55 GMT, "Stuart Miller"
> <> wrote:
>
>> If I specify, for example, a 1600x1200 picture into a cell size of 160x120,
>> when does the compression take place? Does apache compress the image before
>> sending, or does the viewer's browser do the compression? Or can this be
>> controlled?
>
> The resizing is done by the browser. It is much better to supply a
> correctly sized image. If resampling is a bother I have a Win32 program
> that will resample and upload images. Check
> <http://stevensaunderson.com/pickup.htm> if interested.

Since the OP was sent on OE, we can assume he has access to a WinBox. I
would recommend the freeware IrfanViewer

http://www.irfanview.com/

Really simple to run batch mode where you can resize and apply filter
like sharpen and even append to the filename if you wish to build all
your thumbnail in one click. You can select all the file with drag and
drop so it is ease for the technically challenged.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Steven Saunderson wrote:

> Being a responsible citizen I have complained to some people about
> their sites. So far I have a perfect record of annoying everybody
> and achieving nothing.

"Who the hell are you to be telling me how to manage my sight?"

There's other times you find a webmaster, or in this case, webmistress,
who really get indignant when you write and advise their site is crap. I
reported this one to the owner (tastefully, I thought), who forwarded it
to the author, and I got back a scathing email from her telling me how
wrong and how rude I was, for even suggesting the site was really
borked. See for yourself in anything other than IE. (Hint: it's an MS
Publisher site):

http://www.redskyibizans.com/

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Steven Saunderson wrote:
>
>> Being a responsible citizen I have complained to some people about
>> their sites. So far I have a perfect record of annoying everybody
>> and achieving nothing.
>
> "Who the hell are you to be telling me how to manage my sight?"

ROTFL!!!!! I love it! Shame on you for criticizing her *vision*

I feel ignored, at least you got a response!

>
> There's other times you find a webmaster, or in this case, webmistress,
> who really get indignant when you write and advise their site is crap. I
> reported this one to the owner (tastefully, I thought), who forwarded it
> to the author, and I got back a scathing email from her telling me how
> wrong and how rude I was, for even suggesting the site was really
> borked. See for yourself in anything other than IE. (Hint: it's an MS
> Publisher site):
>
> http://www.redskyibizans.com/

I got so frustrated that I took a day and whipped this up

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/

Most of the time was spent deciphering the Publisher crap and
downloading the monster images, many >2.5MB! My version, the whole site,
is only 1.2MB, less than MS Publisher markup(forget the media)!!!!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

>> There's other times you find a webmaster, or in this case, webmistress,
>> who really get indignant when you write and advise their site is crap. I
>> reported this one to the owner (tastefully, I thought), who forwarded it
>> to the author, and I got back a scathing email from her telling me how
>> wrong and how rude I was, for even suggesting the site was really
>> borked. See for yourself in anything other than IE. (Hint: it's an MS
>> Publisher site):
>>
>> http://www.redskyibizans.com/
>
> I got so frustrated that I took a day and whipped this up
>
> http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/

Gives a 500, on the entiresite, not just that directory.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Now playing: Ace Of Base - Happy Nation

Els wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>>> There's other times you find a webmaster, or in this case, webmistress,
>>> who really get indignant when you write and advise their site is crap. I
>>> reported this one to the owner (tastefully, I thought), who forwarded it
>>> to the author, and I got back a scathing email from her telling me how
>>> wrong and how rude I was, for even suggesting the site was really
>>> borked. See for yourself in anything other than IE. (Hint: it's an MS
>>> Publisher site):
>>>
>>> http://www.redskyibizans.com/
>> I got so frustrated that I took a day and whipped this up
>>
>> http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/
>
> Gives a 500, on the entiresite, not just that directory.
>


Try http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/index.php

Damn Fatcow, must be futzing with their servers again. I am about to do
a Joe Pesci on them "Dats it!"

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Els wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>>> There's other times you find a webmaster, or in this case, webmistress,
>>>> who really get indignant when you write and advise their site is crap. I
>>>> reported this one to the owner (tastefully, I thought), who forwarded it
>>>> to the author, and I got back a scathing email from her telling me how
>>>> wrong and how rude I was, for even suggesting the site was really
>>>> borked. See for yourself in anything other than IE. (Hint: it's an MS
>>>> Publisher site):
>>>>
>>>> http://www.redskyibizans.com/
>>> I got so frustrated that I took a day and whipped this up
>>>
>>> http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/
>>
>> Gives a 500, on the entiresite, not just that directory.
>
> Try http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/lu/index.php

Nice entirely blank page

In the mean time the other link is working properly now though. I can
actually see pictures of dogs, while the original site doesn't show
any picture (or link) at all.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Now playing: Duran Duran - Notorious