• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Dear 'The OT' -- I need some Web Help

Status
Not open for further replies.

olimario

Banned
I'm making a website for my new godson. I was wondering if there was a program out there, preferrably freeware, that would take a folder of pictures, turn them to thumbnails, and create a gallery from them that I can upload as a series of webpages?

I know some adobe program did this, but I don't have.
 

Dilbert

Member
Picasa. Free, thanks to Google. According to the documentation, it can export a DHTML-compatible webpage from a selected gallery. Haven't tried it, so I don't know how well it works...but it's a good starting place.
 

Ecrofirt

Member
do you have to make thumbnails? Can't you just set the width and height per picture on the page?

There's probably some reason you're not doing this, though.
 

8bit

Knows the Score
If it's server side tech you need, I think imagemagick or batik suits your needs. Otherwise, google a photoshop plugin.
 

Dilbert

Member
Ecrofirt said:
do you have to make thumbnails? Can't you just set the width and height per picture on the page?

There's probably some reason you're not doing this, though.
If you do that, you have two problems:

1) You waste bandwidth loading the ENTIRE image into the thumbnail. The whole point of thumbnails is to conserve bandwidth while allowing the user to select which images are "worth" seeing.

2) It's bad (X)HTML style to specify a height/width which is not the same as the source image. Also, you are relying on the browser's own scaler to deal with the minification, which will have unknown -- but usually poor -- quality.
 

Ecrofirt

Member
-jinx- said:
If you do that, you have two problems:

1) You waste bandwidth loading the ENTIRE image into the thumbnail. The whole point of thumbnails is to conserve bandwidth while allowing the user to select which images are "worth" seeing.

2) It's bad (X)HTML style to specify a height/width which is not the same as the source image. Also, you are relying on the browser's own scaler to deal with the minification, which will have unknown -- but usually poor -- quality.


I hadn't thought of any of that. Of course, now it's pretty obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom