Starship Asterisk*

Hi:
I agree with BMAONE23.
Many grettings
Cesar

Oooo, thank you! And I've been playing with attachments; whatever switch you flipped, thank you! Works great!

Check this out, from one of our submitters, Alex Tudorica:

Thank you!

Well, the only simple way is for me to make a new img tag. If you want your images automatically shrunk to 400px wide use img2 from now on. Test:

geckzilla, if it's an image that I am uploading, I do reduce it, as that is the only means I have of posting it. If an image is on the web already, I don't upload it; I use the image tag instead. Is there anything different I need to do to get the 400px thumbnail? (I got the impression that you changed a setting and that the thumbnail is now automatic, but am uncertain whether that's the case. In other words, I'm [once again] confuzzled.)

Chris, I most often use a small iBook; 640x480 and down displays fine on it. I've been using the iBook's small screen as my guide for what's okay sizewise (when I have a choice of size, that is).

Test Ok, it makes 400px wide thumbnails now. I don't know how I went so long without enabling that... you reminded me that the option exists, Chris. Thanks!

Oh, btw, for extremely large images there is a possibility of failure, but I don't know how big they'd have to be for that to happen. If it ever happens, try manually shrinking the image a bit first and then upload again.

I voted for the smallest size, because it is by far the friendliest for an inline image. Good web design practices make inline images in pages fit entirely within the browser window even on small displays. These days, that basically means that if you are using a netbook you should be able to view these images without needing to scroll. Obviously, in this particular forum the reduced images would link to full sized images. The purpose of the inline image is to act as a good quality thumbnail- it needs to provide a good enough view to let the user know if he wants to click through to the full size, but not much more than that. In the example posted, the smallest size is just fine for that.

It's hard to believe there isn't a phpBB module or setting that limits the size of a displayed image by resizing it dynamically when a page is generated. I've never seen a content management system that didn't provide that feature.

640x480 down to 400x300

I think the width is more the problem, as long as the height isn't greater than the width.

I'm after what gets posted on a thread; my apologies for not having made that clearer. I will always link to a large image if one is available.

This is basically a continuation of (or better perhaps, in response to) the discussion that started here.

(I've edited the opening post and hope the question I'm asking is now clear; thanks for the input.)

I agree with BMAONE23, what size you want depends on what you want to see, the entire image or some very small details.

Ann

It would depend on how the inage was to be presented. The 410x308 is great for thread posted images but linking them to a 2048x1536 or larger makes for better viewing of details. So it really depends on how the image is being utilized.

410x308 (20%)

512x384 (25%)

614x461 (30%)

819x614 (40%)

1024x768 (50%)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I don't always have a choice when it comes to image sizes, but when I do, I'd like to know your preferred size
for what size image is displayed on a thread.
Please vote (once) to let me know which size of those below works best for you.
If you have comments, please post them. Thank you!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2048x1536 (full)