X3Photo Gallery Forums

I've noticed this as well and mentioned it before on the forums. If it's not something that can be improved then images sizes will have to be constrained.

I've maximized the image space in my gallery (no thumbscroller and small margins). Anything larger than 640 pixels wide on a standard sized windows monitor and shows very noticeable artifacts due to reduced size. It's not so much a problem on a mac as the standard view has more space.

It would be nice to host at least 800px wide images with no reduction artifacts.

If improving the quality of reduced images will not be possible, please let us know, so we can keep this in mind while creating/sizing web images.

I'm glad that somebody is shining light on this issue, although there are no straight-forward answers ...

TestEx wrote:It is possible.

Older version was down-scaling images from any size bigger than available desktop / screen space.

I don't see how that is any different now. The system uses the exact same method for downscaling images if they are too large for stage area as in the V1 gallery.

TestEx wrote:When pictures are bigger than available space, they are downscaled creating artifacts.

Same with up-scaled thumbnails.

Let me explain one thing first: Flash will always create artifacts when scaling images, mostly on images scaled up, but also on images scaled down. This can not be changed in any way by ourselves, and is in fact the same when a browser scales down a large image to fit within browser window.

Images: The default configuration of Imagevue sets images to keep aspect and not scale up, but scale down to fit within the available screen areas. There are configuration options in the new version to change how the image is displayed, but how do you suggest we change it? We can set the image to not scale down, but then it might for example display nicely on a large screen, but hidden on a small screen. There are also many other options, like always displaying image in fullscreen(all the way out to the borders), but this will of course lead to even more artifacts(unless you have very large images).

thumbnails: This has been discussed earlier - The default configuration sets the thumbnails to scale from 100% to 120%. We could for example set them to scale from 50% to 100%, but in EITHER case, you will get reszing in one state or the other, and possibly artifacts? The other reason why we are not too fond of setting default thumbs at 50%, is that we would have to set default thumbsize much larger, exponentially increasing the filesize.

I am open to any suggestions, just know that there is no means-to-an-end suggestion especially regarding display of the main image!

I still need to set up a few gallery examples of display methods for images.

mjau-mjau wrote:....I am open to any suggestions, just know that there is no means-to-an-end suggestion especially regarding display of the main image!

I still need to set up a few gallery examples of display methods for images.

Understand.

I guess the best thing is simply to be conservative with our image sizes & maximize the image space within the themes.

I truly appreciate your responsiveness to all the inquiries. Ya'll ROCK -;)

Options for scaling images has been updated in the release 20080728, and I have created an overview:
viewtopic.php?t=3384