WARNING: This is a photograph

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
The window size is one of several things
that determines the number of pixels any given image uses
for the actual screen display.

Sandman:
The width set by CSS or HTML is what determines the
size of the image.

img src='floydisignorant.jpg' width='100' height='100'

The above will not change regardless of your web browser
window size.

You're welcome.

Floyd L. Davidson:
You're wrong!

Sandman:
Of course not.

Floyd L. Davidson:
Push down on the Control key, and the tap the + or - keys a few
times...

Sandman:
That doesn't change the window size, Floyd. Is keeping a simple
train of thought too hard for you?

It changes the image size in whatever window the image is being
displayed in. It's another way that user configuration causes image
resampling for display.

Your incorrect claim is still above, which is what I correctly pointed out
was incorrect. You realized that you've made a fool of yourself and are now
desperately trying to find other ways in which a user can change the size
of an image after it has already been shown at the size I have correctly
said it is displayed in.

You're falling quickly, and your parachute is broken. Bail out of this
thread at first opportunity.

Switching a browser between full screen and otherwise is another
user configuration that does the same thing

Incorrect. Going full screen does not change the size of images in HTML.

and changing the window size when it is not full screen also causes
resampling.

Still incorrect.

This is the page we're talking about:
http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/arkivet/2014-08-15/Josef_Tina__Elias

Please claim that you have a broken web client that resizes the images on
that page when you put it in full screen mode and/or change the window
size.

Sandman:
Yeah, one can wish. But I'm stuck with illiterate morons like you,
that keep running their mouth without knowing what they're talking
about.

Poor you. Got nailed again!

Indeed, there is no escape from your stupidity.


--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
The window size is one of several things
that determines the number of pixels any given image uses
for the actual screen display.

Sandman:
The width set by CSS or HTML is what determines the
size of the image.

img src='floydisignorant.jpg' width='100' height='100'

The above will not change regardless of your web browser
window size.

You're welcome.

Floyd L. Davidson:
You're wrong!

Sandman:
Of course not.

Floyd L. Davidson:
Push down on the Control key, and the tap the + or - keys a few
times...

Sandman:
That doesn't change the window size, Floyd. Is keeping a simple
train of thought too hard for you?

It changes the image size in whatever window the image is being
displayed in. It's another way that user configuration causes image
resampling for display.

Your incorrect claim is still above, which is what I correctly pointed out
was incorrect. You realized that you've made a fool of yourself and are now
desperately trying to find other ways in which a user can change the size
of an image after it has already been shown at the size I have correctly
said it is displayed in.

You're falling quickly, and your parachute is broken. Bail out of this
thread at first opportunity.

Your well known inability to read English does not change what I said.

I cited an example where the browser may resample the downloaded
image. Then I cited another example.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
The window size is one of several things that determines the
number of pixels any given image uses for the actual screen
display.

snip

Your well known inability to read English does not change what I said.

I cited an example where the browser may resample the downloaded
image. Then I cited another example.

Which was incorrect. The window size will NOT, I repeat - *NOT* resize the
images in this web page:

http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/arkivet/2014-08-15/Josef_Tina__Elias

You made an *incorrect* statement, and as usual you refuse to admit to your
error. I can totally understand why, you make so many errors in your every
post, so it would be quite humiliating if you were to admit to them all.



--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
The window size is one of several things that determines the
number of pixels any given image uses for the actual screen
display.

snip

Your well known inability to read English does not change what I said.

I cited an example where the browser may resample the downloaded
image. Then I cited another example.

Which was incorrect. The window size will NOT, I repeat - *NOT* resize the
images in this web page:

http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/arkivet/2014-08-15/Josef_Tina__Elias

You made an *incorrect* statement, and as usual you refuse to admit to your
error. I can totally understand why, you make so many errors in your every
post, so it would be quite humiliating if you were to admit to them all.

You are missing the point that what you say doesn't make
any difference at all.

The fact is that the browser *does* resample your
images, and from the server you cannot stop that nor can
you determine exactly what size will be the result.

The point specifically is that at the browser it is a
total waste of time to choose between a 600 pixel
dimension and a 531 pixel dimension. For that matter
between 300 and 600!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
The window size is one of several
things that determines the number of pixels any
given image uses for the actual screen display.


Floyd L. Davidson:
Your well known inability to read English does not change what I
said.

I cited an example where the browser may resample the downloaded
image. Then I cited another example.

Sandman:
Which was incorrect. The window size will NOT, I repeat - *NOT*
resize the images in this web page:

http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/arkivet/2014-08-15/Josef_Tina__Elias

You made an *incorrect* statement, and as usual you refuse to
admit to your error. I can totally understand why, you make so
many errors in your every post, so it would be quite humiliating
if you were to admit to them all.

You are missing the point that what you say doesn't make any
difference at all.

Incorrect.

The fact is that the browser *does* resample your images, and from
the server you cannot stop that nor can you determine exactly what
size will be the result.

Incorrect. The browser *can* resize images, it does not do so by default.
You are, as usual, incredibly ignorant.

The point specifically is that at the browser it is a total waste of
time to choose between a 600 pixel dimension and a 531 pixel
dimension. For that matter between 300 and 600!

No one has made that choice, you ignorant moron.


--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
The window size is one of several
things that determines the number of pixels any
given image uses for the actual screen display.


Floyd L. Davidson:
Your well known inability to read English does not change what I
said.

I cited an example where the browser may resample the downloaded
image. Then I cited another example.

Sandman:
Which was incorrect. The window size will NOT, I repeat - *NOT*
resize the images in this web page:

http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/arkivet/2014-08-15/Josef_Tina__Elias

You made an *incorrect* statement, and as usual you refuse to
admit to your error. I can totally understand why, you make so
many errors in your every post, so it would be quite humiliating
if you were to admit to them all.

You are missing the point that what you say doesn't make any
difference at all.

Incorrect.

The fact is that the browser *does* resample your images, and from
the server you cannot stop that nor can you determine exactly what
size will be the result.

Incorrect. The browser *can* resize images, it does not do so by default.
You are, as usual, incredibly ignorant.

In fact it does, by default.

The point specifically is that at the browser it is a total waste of
time to choose between a 600 pixel dimension and a 531 pixel
dimension. For that matter between 300 and 600!

No one has made that choice, you ignorant moron.

Read the thread.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The fact is that the browser *does* resample your images, and from
the server you cannot stop that nor can you determine exactly what
size will be the result.

Incorrect. The browser *can* resize images, it does not do so by default.
You are, as usual, incredibly ignorant.

In fact it does, by default.

Incorrect.

The point specifically is that at the browser it is a total waste of
time to choose between a 600 pixel dimension and a 531 pixel
dimension. For that matter between 300 and 600!

No one has made that choice, you ignorant moron.

Read the thread.

You should, but there's little chance you have the capacity to understand
it.

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The fact is that the browser *does* resample your images, and from
the server you cannot stop that nor can you determine exactly what
size will be the result.

Incorrect. The browser *can* resize images, it does not do so by default.
You are, as usual, incredibly ignorant.

In fact it does, by default.

Incorrect.

Except for every modern GUI browser in the last dozen or
more years!

The point specifically is that at the browser it is a total waste of
time to choose between a 600 pixel dimension and a 531 pixel
dimension. For that matter between 300 and 600!

No one has made that choice, you ignorant moron.

Read the thread.

You should, but there's little chance you have the capacity to understand
it.

(Sorry about the typo saying "at the browser" when obviously I meant
at the server. Even you should be able to read through that...)

You just don't remember what you said in this very thread! Maybe you
are trying too hard to forget:

"Visiting that from a normal desktop browser will
send you image files that are 561 pixels wide.
Visiting it from a mobile phone will send you
images that are 300 pixels wide, but, visiting it
from a retina mobile phone, will send you a 600
pixels wide image."
Message-ID:

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
The fact is that the browser *does* resample your images,
and from the server you cannot stop that nor can you
determine exactly what size will be the result.

Sandman:
Incorrect. The browser *can* resize images, it does not do so
by default. You are, as usual, incredibly ignorant.

Floyd L. Davidson:
In fact it does, by default.

Sandman:
Incorrect.

Except for every modern GUI browser in the last dozen or more years!

Incorrect.

Floyd L. Davidson:
The point specifically is that at the browser it is a total
waste of time to choose between a 600 pixel dimension and a
531 pixel dimension. For that matter between 300 and 600!

Sandman:
No one has made that choice, you ignorant moron.

Floyd L. Davidson:
Read the thread.

Sandman:
You should, but there's little chance you have the capacity to
understand it.

(Sorry about the typo saying "at the browser" when obviously I meant
at the server. Even you should be able to read through that...)

I did.

You just don't remember what you said in this very thread! Maybe
you are trying too hard to forget:

"Visiting that from a normal desktop browser will send you image files
that are 561 pixels wide. Visiting it from a mobile phone will send you
images that are 300 pixels wide, but, visiting it from a retina mobile
phone, will send you a 600 pixels wide image."

Indeed - read until you understand it. I won't hold my breath.

For anyone with a brain that wants to know how these things work, when
you're writing a CMS, and you deal with a lot of images, you have to scale
and cache them. Customers/users upload high resolution images that will be
shown in a low-resolution context. So the CMS need to scale these images
for the appropriate size.

The appropriate size is determined by the view model, that reports the
given module width to the scale routine. So the view model knows that the
line length for the context, and requests a HTML tag for that context.

The scale routine takes the original photo/image on the server hard drive
and rescales it for the context.

If the scale routine is fairly modern, it will take into account known
resolutions for receiving devices, meaning that while the HTML/CSS tells
the device that a given image should be rendered at X pixels, the
encapsulated image is twice the size.

So this routine:

?
$img = new image("path/to/hires_file.jpg");
print $img-output(560);
?

Result:

img src='/cache/images/abcd1234.jpg' width='560' height='300'

And "abcd1234.jpg" will be a jpg that is 560 and (say) 300 pixels high,
i.e. perfect for the context.

But, if the recieving end is an iPhone with a retina display, the end
result will be this:

img src='/cache/images/abcd1235.jpg' width='300' height='162'

But the cached image file will be 600x321 pixels big.
This is how these things work.


Oh, and if you toggle responsiveness for the view model, you will by
default send larger images to the web browser, since you have to encompass
all possible browser scaling. So for the example above, you wouldn't go by
the line length, and instead the viewport width for the layout file. So you
would request a larger image but display it smaller.




--
Sandman[.net]

On 2015-01-25, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Whiskers wrote:
I tend to use "imagemagick" or "graphicsmagick" to download image files
without the usual browser overheads.

How do you use ImageMagick to download files?

From a Linux command prompt:

$ display https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg


--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~