size of pictures depends on their orientataion

[cactusman]

(reposted from the webtease forum; perhaps this place is more appropriate.)

When putting in pictures in a webtease, it seems that the size of the picture
is trimmed. That's fine, but the trimming is unequal in width and height.
That is, the trimming seems to allow larger pictures that
have a horizontal orientation. If the picture is taller than it is wide,
then it's often reduced quite a bit more than a picture
that is wider than it is tall.

I only complain because it seems like most pictures of women are taller
than they are wide (especially if they are sitting or standing),
and so most pictures come out rather small. I would advocate trimming
pictures by area (product of width and height), or at least allowing the
maximum vertical height to be as large as the maximum horizontal width.

[dark]

Thank you for reposting i deleted your post. I just forgot to move it. I knew there was something

About your suggestion: I think its a good point. Maybe we could set a standard width, but then you would have the problem that some pictures are too tall and nobody likes scrolling. So i have not a perfect idea how to solve it.

[cactusman]

Just to be clear, you already do have a limit on the width of pictures.
What I'm talking about is the height, not the width.
(I presume the width is limited as well, but it seems to be a larger
limit in terms of pixels than the height limit.)

I don't see (vertical) scrolling as a big problem. Typically in pictures of
women, the head is at the top of the picture,
and this is what matters most for most pictures.
Also the amount of scrolling depends on the size of the user's window
(and monitor), and can be controlled by the user.

Certainly you could allow a larger maximum height, as at least on my
screen there is a lot of wasted space at the bottom of all teases, which
only goes to show the logo.

If it's not a bandwidth problem, why not let the maximum height be at
least as large as the maximum width?

[cactusman]

If you check out my demonstration of the use of horizontal pictures
in http://www.milovana.com/webteases/showtease.php?id=317
you will see what I mean about the horizontal pictures being shrunk less.

The first photo is a panorama of Mars that was extremely wide. This
goes to show that there is a limit on the width already, as this was shrunk
quite a bit.

Then the story went on from there and I only used wide pictures.
In doing this I came to the informal conclusion that over 95% of pictures
for teases are taller than they are wide. So having a larger limit on
the height of pictures would be helpful.

[seraph0x]

That behaviour is expected and normal. We had to decide on some common frame. The option are to take a cube as the restrictive size, a portrait format image or a landscape format image.

I do see your point that probably it would have been smarter to choose the portrait format over the landscape one, but I not really eager to resize over 3000 pictures (multiplied by 5 different sizes per picture) and to make numerous changes to the website.

The mars picture is 850px wide, which is exactly the maximum allowed width.

Thanks for the thorough analysis and report!

But I'm sorry, I see no way to easily improve this.

[cactusman]

I'm sorry to belabor this, but I guess I'm a visual person...

Anyway, I understand the need to have some size limits,
but there's no really good reason for not changing in the future.
You don't have to go back and redo all of the old teases,
just leave them as they are and change the editor.
If people want to revise their teases,
they could then do that with the revised editor, and
if not, then they stay as they are.
Not much work for you except making the capability.

However, new teases could use a larger default height.
You could also offer, in the editor, a choice of formats,
perhaps on a per page basis.
Each page format could be associated with its own style sheet.

I also noticed that some of the old orgasmdenial.com teases have
pictures with a larger height than is permitted currently at milovana.

Thanks for considering it...

[mrfire]

What I'm starting to gather from this conversation is that you use an extremely generous screen resolution.

The majority of internet users (and I'm gathering this from my own informal investigations of web logs) restrict themselves to no larger than 1280x800. Occasionally something larger (1600x1200 or somebody with some beautiful flat panel screens and something in the 2400 range) comes along, but for the most part, the average and consistent user is viewing the page at smaller resolutions.

The result of this is that webpages have to be crafted so that scrolling is not required. It's ugly to have a scroll bar on the screen, and even uglier to be forced to use it in the middle of a web tease in order to see the entire picture. Frankly, if I can't blow my browser up to full screen mode and see the entire girl, I'm a lot less likely to become immersed in the tease.

I agree with seraph0x's choice of dimensions. I think it's appropriate not only to the asthetics of the website, but to the personal enjoyment of each user. Although I appreciate where you're coming from, I'm afraid you are of a minority of users who view their desktops at such a high resolution that images around 800x800 appear small.

All the best,
- MrFire

[seraph0x]

I'm sorry to belabor this, but I guess I'm a visual person...

Anyway, I understand the need to have some size limits,
but there's no really good reason for not changing in the future.
You don't have to go back and redo all of the old teases,
just leave them as they are and change the editor.
If people want to revise their teases,
they could then do that with the revised editor, and
if not, then they stay as they are.
Not much work for you except making the capability.

I also noticed that some of the old orgasmdenial.com teases have
pictures with a larger height than is permitted currently at milovana.

Dude, it's not about permission. It's about the software. We're not making much use of this yet, but for things like an automated featured tease box and other stuff we have planned, we need a coherent image format...

I'm already experimenting with converting the OD.com teases btw.

Also, while looking at the tease browser just now, I remember why I chose the horizontal format over the vertical one. I wanted to have at least a common height for most pictures. Of course your mars picture is so extremely wide that it can't preserve the correct height, but pretty much every other thumbnail has the same height. Layout and feature-wise you can do a lot of cool stuff with that. For examples, see last.fm, they use it a lot.

or somebody with some beautiful flat panel screens and something in the 2400 range

2560x1600 to be exact. (Yes, I do have one of those. )

However, new teases could use a larger default height.
You could also offer, in the editor, a choice of formats,
perhaps on a per page basis.
Each page format could be associated with its own style sheet.

Yes, I also thought about how I could use the screen space better. I have a concept lying around here for a tease viewer with the following features:

- Uses a GreyBox for display (try Image Gallery example here)
- Preloads the next image and text
- Users without Javascript get the current viewer, no problem
- Detects the screen resolution and uses the most fitting picture available

But right now I want to focus on some other feature, so please have a little patience, thanks!

[dark]

- Uses a GreyBox for display (try Image Gallery example here)
- Preloads the next image and text
- Users without Javascript get the current viewer, no problem
- Detects the screen resolution and uses the most fitting picture available

That sounds great!

[cactusman]

Just one more note here. Both Firefox and IE have options to resize images
to fit the monitor. If people turn those on, they won't have to scroll.
So this something that the user's can already control.