What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Entertainment
It's like Reservoir Dogs meets Highlander on a train. Sorta. view!
funimation.com - Baccano! For fans of immortal mobsters, demonic alchemists, ditzy dames, mad bombers, and mice.
19 Comments
- dvdgee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This would be cool if it used Prototype's AJAX functions to send the new size to the server and generate a new image using ImageMagick or something similar. As it is, it resizes images in your browser? Anybody with a basic knowledge of DOM scripting could throw this together in 5 minutes. Anyone with a basic understanding of the web, however, would choose not to do this -- the quality of browser image resizing sucks.
Also, I recently checked out scriptaculous after hearing all the hype. Many of it's effects require the use of inline CSS! What the hell? There is no reason for this other than sloppy coding. - jnorris441, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So it scales the images using a slider. Then what?
I was hoping for that cool server side interaction that generates a resized photo. - OwlBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1safari scales images beautifully.
-Owl - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm trying to think of a use for this other than a gallery of images.
I think the more common method of having a compressed image in the page, and clicking it to launch a high res version might still be better. Better than having a scaled down high-res image embedded right into the page, which would make the load time long, be heavy on bandwidth, cause the browser to run slow, and waste memory. - Rirath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh how I hate these kinds of things. Just design the full sized and the thumbnailed sized properly.
- jdoree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not terribly useful as in demo but I'll try to think of a way to utilize this. It's cooool.
- Forse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great stuff. I always wanted something like that.
digg++ - SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Come on haters, its pretty damn sweet. Javascript continues its renessaince... such a powerful, happening little language.
- kamicane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@dvdgee: no, scriptaculous does not require inline css. You are sooo wrong.
- kellenheller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oh I'm so going to use this...awesome
- carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wow, it works in IE
- dvdgee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@kamicane: to use any of scriptaculous' "Fade in/out" effects, you need to have the display property declared inline, if you want the element to be initially hidden, or it won't work. This is documented at the scriptaculou site:
http://wiki.script.aculo.us/scriptaculous/show/Effect.BlindDown
AFAIR, The same is true for Effect.SlideDown, and any other effect you want to call on an initially hidden element. There is no reason for this. According to Peter Paul-Koch's site, I think, elements with display = 'none' have no offsetWidth. They could easily test for this instead of the style.display. There is also the currentStyle/getComputedStyle method of reading computed styles for an element, which should work as well.
@senzafine: While Safari may downsample images beautifully, Firefox and IE on the PC definitely don't. In addition to the detrimental bandwidth effects of loading large numbers of hi-def images in one page, and this script isn't much more than a toy. - hexix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"safari scales images beautifully."
It really does. They must be using CoreImage to do the scaling or something. It's very fast yet has very good results. - Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+049 diggs and no comments?
This site must be really good if people are too busy resizing images to post a comment.... :) - buggedcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this is very nice, however its not exactly very complicated to achieve and don;t really see what also the fuss is about. Now if they used a the scriptalicous multi tab slider and then used that to control the rgb of the image using opacity for rough previews then regenerated the img with gd or magik, that would be much better and def a digg
- MySchizoBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i had no idea only iphoto and aperture could resize images. thanks digg.
- kamicane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@dvdgee: you can always set it with javascript, so, no need to use inline styles.
- einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is awesome. No more fixed-res thumbnail galleries.
And who cares about browser scaling suckage if they're thumbnails?
Hella digg. Going to implement this in several of my sites if it tests out OK. - senzafine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@dvdgee
You don't always want to resize an image on the server side. If it's just for viewing then resize via HTML is your best option. Regenerating images is great if they're going to be requested again...but if not a little deprecation in quality isn't so bad.
Anyone with basic DOM knowledge could probably do this...but we don't...so we digg it :).
