Is there an optimum size for the resampling of images that Wagn does?
Support Ticket
+issues
Here's what I mean. I'm downloading 1080p HD screencaps. Big pretty images. If I upload those to the site and have them display at medium (because huge images in a recap is silly) it's very pixelated because of the resampling the site does. If, however, I have Irfanview resize the image, the result is MUCH sharper. The resampling Irfanview does is higher quality than whatever program Wagn is using to do it. But if I upload the originals at that size, I can't ever do anything in the future in terms of maybe getting the pop-up shadowbox to work to display the larger size because there won't BE a larger size. There will only be 200x112 images.
So, is there some size image that is less than the 1080p screencap but larger than the medium display that will create a sharp image when downsized to medium within the site?
I'm going to try emailing you the two images next to each other. The one is a straight resize in irfanview, the second I opened the image card in Opera and did a save as of the image, which was labeled 304image5-medium.jpg by the system. I don't know if this is one of those things where they try to show you an HD TV on a standard television.
Well, wagn isn't a "standard television" here. You're not seeing what the image looks like after wagn processing; wagn doesn't ever touch the second image; it just tells the browser where to find it, and the browser downloads it directly.
I don't think there's anyway to get around the idea that a detailed picture is going to look pixelated when it's constructed out of a small number of pixels.
Is there a big difference in the file size of these two images? If the irfanview one is still large, chances are that you're just looking at more pixels (ie; the image isn't genuinely resized).
Yes, the image sizes are different. The one I resized is 19k, the one from the site is 5k. They are the same dimensions, 200x11x24bpp. Wagn has to touch the image. I didn't make an image called 304image5-medium.jpg. That's a product of me uploading a full size image and then "Open image in new tab" from an inclusion set to medium. If I open the image card and do the same thing, it'll open http://teenwolfwiki.com/wagn/files/304image5-large-25095.jpg and if I actually want to see the full size image, I have to change the url manually to say full in place of large. I didn't upload 3 files, I uploaded one, so it's making the smaller ones somewhere.
Could it be a compression setting? Is ImageMagick defaulting to compressing JPGs at quality 80? Their docs say it should use 92. I just saved a bunch of samples from my original (q100) to q92 and q80. 80 looks the closest to the file I pulled off the site and is the closest in file size. I'd prefer q100.
Oo! I have an idea! I think maybe it's taking the quality rating from the HD images and using that. So if I pre-process them and set them to 100 before I upload it'll keep that for when it resizes them down. I'm gonna try it.
Yes, this is what it was. Potentially this never came up before because I was using PNG, and the PNG quality setting that VLC defaults to is higher? Or the highest? The JPGs I'm now getting are q80, which is fine when they're large dimension but not when they're tiny. If I reset them to q100, they resize okay.
nice work!
fwiw, when I said Wagn didn't touch the image, I meant that it wasn't doing anything to the one you put on dropbox (unless that one was already from wagn). Wagn is definitely touching the ones it resizes :)