Exactly. The square thumbnails with rounded edges in publisher seemed like an artistic/design choice, so I tried to keep them. :)
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:34:26 PM UTC+1, mpl wrote: > > ah, I get it I think. You were trying to see if we could fix things while > still keeping only square thumbnails? > > > On 24 January 2017 at 08:29, Attila Tajti <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I was wondering if there is a good use case where square thumbnails are >> needed in the first place. They are easy to work with and I liked iPhoto >> and Photofloat that used them, but I agree something like the web UI would >> be far superior. >> >> >> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 1:05:56 AM UTC+1, mpl wrote: >>> >>> wait, why do we need anything new on the server-side, since the web UI >>> is already capable of doing this job pretty well? Why can't the publisher >>> code be improved to do the same thing the web UI does? What am I missing? >>> >>> >>> On 20 January 2017 at 08:47, Attila Tajti <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 2:01:52 AM UTC+1, mpl wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17 January 2017 at 18:28, Attila Tajti <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Btw, the thumbnails in the publisher show up with an incorrect aspect >>>>>> ratio (apparently the image is streched into a square shape) but >>>>>> standalone >>>>>> images appear fine. Is there anything I can do about it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, I did the very minimum amount of math for the thumbs. >>>>> You can: >>>>> 1) as usual file an issue :-) (but that probably won't be in my >>>>> priorities, sorry) >>>>> 2) fix the code at app/publisher/js/members.go. Aaron had done it >>>>> pretty well for the web UI (I'm still seeing some bugs if I mix images >>>>> with >>>>> very different sizes though), so that might be the way to go for >>>>> inspiration. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> For square thumbnails to work thumbnail images are needed with proper >>>> size (i.e. cropped to 200x200px), perhaps with new query parameters cw and >>>> ch (crop width/height) on the server. >>>> >>>> The cropping could alternatively be done in the browser, but then an >>>> image should be proportionally scaled so that (width >= 200px && height >= >>>> 200px && (height == 200px || width == 200px)). Then the server would need >>>> store bits of the image that are never shown, therefore it would be better >>>> to have it cropped on the server side >>>> >>>> The handler would scale the image until either (scaledwidth == cw && >>>> scaledheight >= ch) or (scaledheight == ch || scaledwidth >= cw) is true, >>>> crop the top/bottom or left/right sides of it so that the thumb will have >>>> the exact dimensions cw × ch. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Camlistore" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Camlistore" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Camlistore" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
