Gradual image fade in

[newtohtml]

I want to design a page which can do the following:

1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on one
will display the full size image (~50mb) on the same page next to the
thumbnails. I have seen pages like this, but the whole page is reloaded
to display the full image. Is there a way to do this without reloading
the whole page, i.e. keep the thumbnails unchanged, and just update the
full image?

2. When displaying the above full image, can the full image gradually
fade in and without seeing progressive or checker boxes?

3. A slide show that will fade out an image and fade in a new one, much
like on a real slide projector.

Doing this in either html or with some other tool would be fine.
Examples of existing sites that do this would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Webcastmaker]

I want to design a page which can do the following...

Doing this in either html or with some other tool would be fine.
Examples of existing sites that do this would be appreciated. Thanks.\

After reading all the posts about how you don't "really" want to do
what you want, or how it won't work, your discriminating etc...
(Some of which are true but irrelevant to your question.)

Go to www.swishit.com. Download their demo. Take a day to run
through the tutorial. You will be rewarded with a Flash development
environment that will let you do everything you wanted and more.

Swish is a Flash development environment that will let you
graphically create some pretty sophisticated flash objects. The last
time I checked it cost about $50.00

 

[Hywel]

I want to design a page which can do the following:

1. There will be several image thumbnails on the page. Clicking on one
will display the full size image (~50mb)

Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
browser?

 

[Webcastmaker]

Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
browser?

Have you ever seen a 50 meg image? Probably not. I am guessing he
means either 5 meg or 50k.

 

[menu boy]

Are you nuts? Why would anyone want to view a 50MB image in their
browser?

Astronomy nerds...like myself.

 

[Karl Groves]

Astronomy nerds...like myself.

Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?

-Karl

 

[menu boy]

Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?

On *my* PC? About 10 mins. I've downloaded images that big.
They were all star charts, deep field sky images and the like.

 

[Neal]

Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?

-Karl

I'd "guesstimate" about 5 hours on dialup, 5 minutes on cable. Way too big
for web use.

 

[Webcastmaker]

Do you have ANY idea how long it would take to download a 50mb image?

How long is completely irrelevant. If they know the size, they can
make their own decision of they want to wait or not.

 

[Webcastmaker]

I'd "guesstimate" about 5 hours on dialup, 5 minutes on cable. Way too big
for web use.

Completely irrelevant. The people that want the charts (an now that
I know what they are 50 meg is not too bad) Will wait EVEN with
dialup.

This is one of those websites that is not meant for everyone, but the
people that visit (Amat astronomers) will love it. So as we can see,
50 meg is NOT too big for the Web. It is too big for YOU.

 

[Arondelle]

Have you ever seen a 50 meg image? Probably not. I am guessing he
means either 5 meg or 50k.

I frequent several sites that feature galleries of computer-generated 3D
graphics. (For instance: http://www.rederosity.com/ - free membership
required) Some users like to work large: 2000x2000px and up.
Fortunately, the site operators set a size limit on images that can be
uploaded at about 150k, but there's always a bozo who loves to push that
limit.

I have no idea why anyone would bother rendering an image that size if
all they're going to do is post it to an internet gallery: the detail is
great, of course, but a user viewing it has to scroll all over to see
all of it. Sort of takes all the fun out of that high resolution --
unless you have a huge monitor with an outrageous screen resolution.

Meanwhile, these images-on-steroids download in dog-years, and I,
personally, click off to find something else I don't have to wait so
long for. I have DSL; I shudder to think of what the download times are
like on dial up.

(OTOH, I work to the screen, 700x700px maximum, and get bitched at by
the viewers with monster monitors who think my images are too tiny
and/or too compressed. Can't please *anyone* these days...)

Seems to me that presenting a huge image interactively is just asking
for trouble: I was just recently bitched out for trying to do that with
small photographs.

Arondelle

 

[Karl Groves]

On *my* PC? About 10 mins. I've downloaded images that big.
They were all star charts, deep field sky images and the like.

*Your* PC != everyone else's PC

On 33.6kb, that image will take 4hr, 20m+
On 56kb, that image will take 2hr, 34m+
On cable or T-1, that image will take 5m 37s

Some studies show that 60% of people will abandon an online transaction if
the pages download slowly.

"Users will wait about 10 seconds for a page to load, sometimes 15 seconds,
before they lose interest"- Usability.gov

" Are We There Yet? Effects of Delay on User Perceptions of Web Sites "
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/aug032.htm

" Acceptable Computer Response Times "
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/apr012.htm

 

[Webcastmaker]

*Your* PC != everyone else's PC

Don't you don't get it, in this case (huge star chart image
specifically designed to be that big), this makes no difference.

On 33.6kb, that image will take 4hr, 20m+
On 56kb, that image will take 2hr, 34m+
On cable or T-1, that image will take 5m 37s

Completely irrelevant in this case. If someone wants that chart,
they will wait 4 hours on a 33k pipe. If they came to the site
specifically to get this 50 meg image, they will wait.

 

[menu boy]

*Your* PC != everyone else's PC

On 33.6kb, that image will take 4hr, 20m+
On 56kb, that image will take 2hr, 34m+
On cable or T-1, that image will take 5m 37s

Some studies show that 60% of people will abandon an online transaction if
the pages download slowly.

These type of downloads are strictly for people who use them.
They are generally in specialized sites, like astronomy sites.
I doubt someone not looking for a 50 mb image is going to
stumble on a page like this accidently.

You should visit some astronomy sites. I see images that are
10mb+ constantly.

 

[Karl Groves]

Clicking

These type of downloads are strictly for people who use them.
They are generally in specialized sites, like astronomy sites.
I doubt someone not looking for a 50 mb image is going to
stumble on a page like this accidently.

You should visit some astronomy sites. I see images that are
10mb+ constantly.

I know some people who drive drunk. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it,
too.

-Karl

 

[Andy Dingley]

Have you ever seen a 50 meg image?

Yes - thousands of them (I'm not joking). According to various
arcane calculations, 60MB is the size needed to store digital images
in TIFF format, sufficient to recreate a photo-quality 35mm slide.

Another view is that this is entirely bogus, and that 6MB and Kodak's
PhotoCD encoding is enough. However we were catching them as TIFFs -
a handful to a CD.

We got through _lots_ of CDs on that project, even with a robert to
handle them for us.

 

[Webcastmaker]

I know some people who drive drunk. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it,
too.

I think you are just trolling now Karl because you are blatantly
ignoring the obvious. The visitors WANT this image. They search the
web out for this exact thing. So if someone stumbles across the
image, they will do one of two things. They will either leave
because who would want to download a 50 meg picture. OR they will
say WOW what an awesome detailed start map. It sure is worth the
download time to get it. Because of the detail, an image with a
lesser size would be worthless.

See this is a perfect example where every page on the Web is not
meant for everyone. This page is meant for people specifically
looking for very hi-rez star maps. And It is ok for them to be on
the web too. The OP should use alt text to tell everyone of the
size, but other than that, they are on their own.

 

[menu boy]

I know some people who drive drunk. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it,
too.

I can see where this is going. Thanks for your input, and your ridiculous
comparison.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

news:[email protected]...

<trim some 60 lines which add little context to a, barely, 1 line
response>

I know some people who drive drunk. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it,
too.

I read this, and the first thing it reminded me of was Bill Gates'
famous assertion that no PC would ever need more than 640K memory
(though there now appears to be some question as to whether he did say
it: <http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,1484,00.html>).

Quick: what is the maximum file size anyone will ever have to
legitimately download?

If it's common practice in some field to require extremely high
resolution images (as I'm fairly certain the case is in astronomy), then
what legitimate reason is there to complain about the size of the file?

Certainly, for the site hosting the image, it would be polite to inform
the visitor of the size before the download -- maybe with an estimated
download time to help those who have trouble estimating things like
that. But beyond that, what on earth is wrong with allowing people to
download large files of data if they wish?

If your particular use case has no need for inflicting that sort of
download on your visitors, then please, don't. The fact that you don't
have a use case, however, doesn't mean that legitimate ones aren't out
there.

--
Joel.

http://www.cv6.org/
"May she also say with just pride:
I have done the State some service."

 

[Jeff Thies]

I think you are just trolling now Karl because you are blatantly
ignoring the obvious. The visitors WANT this image.

There's no indication that the OP deals with astronomy images.

Note line #3:

3. A slide show that will fade out an image and fade in a new one, much
like on a real slide projector.

Not even a real astronomy nut would want to see a slideshow of 50 meg
astronomy images that fade in and out every 10 minutes on his cable.
Isn't that right menu boy? Don't you just save those 10 meg images or do
you apply special effect to them?

We'll never know what mistakes the OP made in his post because he is not
following this thread!

On another note, I have an aqauaintance that had a long page of html
sized down images that he uploaded on his work connection. This was so
slow, that I left this load overnight on my dialup. The following
morning it was still loading, stupid happens.

Jeff