Hello
when we define [ a custom size ] with crop=false, it would be better to set one size as optional : currently width and heigth are both required but with crop=false one is optional
Last edited by flop25 (2012-04-03 20:56:05)
Offline
hum... what is "crop=false"?
Here is the new user interface I'm preparing.
Offline
sry some words missing I edit
Last edited by flop25 (2012-04-03 21:41:58)
Offline
plg,
what do you mean by "original size / resize after upload" ?
Offline
rvelices wrote:
plg,
what do you mean by "original size / resize after upload" ?
I mean that once the photo is uploaded (web form or API) it can be resized. It happens before derivatives starts their work.
Offline
rvelices wrote:
plg,
what do you mean by "original size / resize after upload" ?
I'm sry but that's not the point if this thread
Offline
flop25 wrote:
Hello
when we define [ a custom size ] with crop=false, it would be better to set one size as optional : currently width and heigth are both required but with crop=false one is optional
you could just put 99999 ... the result is what you would expect ?
Offline
rvelices wrote:
you could just put 99999 ... the result is what you would expect ?
That's what I've done ; I'm just asking for an enhancement and see if I've not missed something. I was surprised by the error returned whereas there is no real error Besides I've corrected a 'typing' orthography mistake what make me think I was the first to see that error ^^
Offline
Ok now I've got a problem with that way : watermark ! because one of the dimension is bigger than the min dimension for watermark, it applies the watermark : so this fix is not proper at all
Offline
I was thinking about that and I suddenly remembered of the 'Juza project' : http://www.juzaphoto.com/index2.php?l=e … idutente=1 currently the site has changed but the albums were represented by a width wide pictures like their current header (shwing clouds)
Such thumbnails will have the watermark, so instead of making one the parameter (width/height) optional, we should have a watermark parameter : watermark=true will force the application of the watermarks and false will... well ^^
Offline
flop25 wrote:
Ok now I've got a problem with that way : watermark ! because one of the dimension is bigger than the min dimension for watermark, it applies the watermark : so this fix is not proper at all
it was, but not after this commit by plg [Subversion] r14581
Offline
I think I could see why plg did it : because the user will not understand to see a picture watermarked and the other not when one size is nearly the minimum dim for watermark... but the panoramas might not be watermarked this way and currently it's kind of a 'major' issue for Stripped & columns and my TE... well well
I notify plg to talk about that
Offline
OK, so we have a 20120704202654-fed2dea0-cu_s150x9999.jpg and unfortunately it seems that the decision to apply the watermark is not related to the real resulting size of the picture but related to the maximum size, right?
As far as I understand the problem, I have replace "and" by "or" to solve a user experience issue (in my opinion), but the current problem is purely technical : the watermark should be applied only if the resulting derivative is bigger than the minimum size for watermark.
Offline
plg wrote:
OK, so we have a 20120704202654-fed2dea0-cu_s150x9999.jpg and unfortunately it seems that the decision to apply the watermark is not related to the real resulting size of the picture but related to the maximum size, right?
exactly
but we might have panor
plg wrote:
As far as I understand the problem, I have replace "and" by "or" to solve a user experience issue (in my opinion),.
yeah I think that's what I thought : it may be disturbing for an user
plg wrote:
but the current problem is purely technical : the watermark should be applied only if the resulting derivative is bigger than the minimum size for watermark.
hum don't see your point
Offline
If you have a panorama, let's say 300 pixels high and 1000 pixels wide, then if you have set "watermark if width>500px or height>500px" then I think it's perfectly expected to have a watermark.
If you take the XXS size you have no watermark. The custom size 150x9999 is smaller but has a watermark. My conclusion is that the decision to apply a watermark is not taken considering the real dimensions of the image but the maximum dimensions of the image, which is not a very expected behavior, from a user point of view.
Offline