| 11:03 pm on Jun 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I personally don't know of image size restrictions,
first is your colleague optimizing the graphic in fireworks (i.e = png)
why is he trying with both png and gif.
If you optimize a graphic in fireworks it will work on any platform to a degree.
The fact that he can get it to work on opera and not ie or nn is bizarre to me.
Please be more specific in relation to what he wants to achieve and what he actually has ?
| 11:27 pm on Jun 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>Please be more specific
Ya, make up a BIG graphic and show it to us.
| 11:57 pm on Jun 20, 2001 (gmt 0)|
LOL... I think the problem is that we couldn't open it even if he did try to show it to us. I've never actually heard that browsers had a maximum allowable/showable image size, but then again, it could be a matter of oversight on the programmers' parts...
Who the heck would want to use a 10,000 pixel-wide imageon their website? ;)
| 1:07 am on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Mostly, it's out of curiousity. The actual project will use a tiff plugin. Our engineering dept. wants to be able to view the large documents via a web based application (right now it's a VB app.) They want to maintain as much visual "information" as possible. If that means being able to see the coffee ring or finger print, so be it. ;)
The documents are E sized drawings or smaller, and originate as TIFFs via a mongo-huge Xerox scanner. TIFF is likely to be the final product, as well. The large GIFs and PNGs were stumbled upon by accident, while we were seeing if we could optimize the images for size (using photoshop.)
I can't think of a really good reason a person would wanna do this, but it's a matter of curiosity at this point. :) What's Opera doin' that the others aren't, ya know.
To test this, I've thrown up one of the pages our developer was working on at:
[net-words.com...] The graphic is over a meg in size. So far, only Opera can open it, that we can tell. (Oh, on Windows NT4 and 2K.)
| 1:19 am on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Well, it is a stupidly huge file for viewing on a browser... :) But IE 5/Mac opened it just fine. And darn quick on my office connection. I won't even bother trying on my dial-up at home.
IE 5/Mac also gives a darn handy little pop-up control thing that lets you zoom the graphic down in size... unless that's something your guys added evinrude? The image is totally unreadable at 25% size tho', and 50% size is still too huge to bother trying to scroll through.
Could the 'not opening files' problem be specific to Windows, or to the individual computers you're using?
| 1:32 am on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>Well, it is a stupidly huge file for viewing on a browser..
I can certainly agree with that. :)
The zoom feature was coded by the developer. A lesson in DHTML. I don't think it works on Netscape 4, though I haven't really tried. Actually, I don't think it works on anything other then IE, come to think about it. IE is the eventual target of whatever app winds up being written.
>Could the 'not opening files' problem be specific to
>Windows, or to the individual computers you're using?
It certainly could be a Windows thing. We don't have any Macs to test on here (and our boss won't let us get one...despite many cries and bribery attempts...*grin*). Doubt it's machine specific, we've tried it on about 6 or 7 different ones, but then, they are all almost identical...
| 1:43 am on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I was thinking it might be related to available RAM, or something like that. Hold on a moment, and I'll try it on the NT machine next to me...
*ack* just tried to copy a URL on the Mac so I could paste it into the NT browser window... then I tried to scroll my cursor off the NT screen and over to the mac monitor...
Maybe it is Windows... on Windows NT:
- IE 5.5 just gave me the little red X icon
- NN 4.08 has a broken image icon, AND the scaling control box seems to stretch indefinitely off the right-hand side of the screen
- Sure enough, Opera loaded it just fine.
- Netscape 4.72/Mac gave me a "running out of memory" error message, and then showed the broken image icon...
So far, only IE 5/Mac and Opera 5/NT have suceeded here. I don't have Opera/Mac yet, so that's all I can test.
| 2:05 am on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>(plats...E sized drawings used by realtors, utilities, local government, etc...)
:) Light Bulb :)
If these images are going to be used in a court proceeding or public hearing as part of an EIR, we have been through this before.
The image itself may be priced at $800 +/-
Printing cost is WAY big.
The problem MAY be getting it from Point A to Point B in a hurry.
We use the FTP solution and open it in Photoshop & then print.
does that help ya in any way?
| 2:09 am on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>Maybe it is Windows... on Windows NT:
- IE 5.5 just gave me the little red X icon
On W98: IE 5.5, I got an alert box with "aspect ratio:" followed by a string of numbers. That alert popped up pretty quickly, IE bailed after that, didn't try to open the image.
| 3:58 am on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Some background (just for fun, or somethin'.. :))....
Our engineers wanted a method for viewing their images (at the time giant plastic sheets with maps on them....I'd call 'em microfiche 'cept there was nothing "micro" about them...) They scanned them all in, generating ~9000 tiff images using 'bout 9Gb of disk space. Attributes for each image were stored in a database and a VB app was written to allow them to search for and view documents based off of those attributes.
Our boss decided this would make a super-keen web app. We agreed, but worried 'bout the size of tiff images and download speed (the largest image being 20M, average being 800K.) The person assigned the project decided to try and optimize towards GIF or PNG. That's when he discovered the oddity with the browsers.
He's since found a really cool tiff plugin that does a lot of what he'd planned to develop, including zoom, rubber banding, graceful image degredation, and doesn't take up whoppin' amounts of horizontal scroll like this first attempt (it takes none at all, actually, dynamically resizing to fit the browser window). It looks like this is the route we're gonna take. On out internal network, it turns out, the downloads of the tiffs is pretty darned quick. :)
>Printing cost is WAY big.
We print inhouse. If I recall correctly we're the ones charging others. ;)
>The problem MAY be getting it from Point A to Point B in a hurry.
This is the one I start to worry about. I know that if this is successful, we'll be looking at a way to market it outside. We've already done that with the existing VB app. And it requires 11 CDs to distribute the images. :P We've thought of distributing on DVD-ROM, but that reduces the audience considerably.
>I got an alert box with "aspect ratio:" followed by a string of numbers
| 9:42 am on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I don't think it is related to the power of my computer.
Sounds like an interesting experiment!
| 4:53 pm on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
We just started a similar scannning project. We have approximately 10,000 original subdivision mylars that we are scanning using a Contex scanner with WIDEImage software. We are scanning to .tiff format, using a Group 4 compression scheme. Using the compression technology, the file sizes end up very reasonable, with a really large image being 300K in size. It will probably take all summer to scan the mylars, and build the database, then we will deal with putting them out on our web site for public viewing.
| 5:33 pm on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Hiya mtalaska! Welcome to WMW. Always good to see a fellow Alaskan! :)
Any chance you could share your experiences with the Contex scanners?
| 7:14 pm on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
hey evinrude. Nice summer so far, huh? We have had the Contex scanner (36" wide format) for about three weeks. The software is very easy to use. We don't have the document management software yet (ACS AutoEDMS). That should be installed soon. The scanner itself is fairly small, and can be set up on a stand (as we have it) or on a table top. We haven't tried any color scanning yet, since our project is subdivision plats which are black and white line drawings. Since the scanner is so new, I don't really have much else to say about it yet.
| 10:56 pm on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
.oO(note to self - begin organizing Alaskan takeover of WebmasterWorld... Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha)
| 11:04 pm on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Does that mean we'd have to do the admin. stuff? 'cause if so, I think i've got like an AA meeting or something day. 'sides I might try to load whoppin' huge PNGs on the page, and we know how well that works. *grin*
Anyone up to makin' a 10,000 x 5,000 pixel WMW logo? ;)
| 8:19 am on Jun 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I believe the problem is more based on the file type than size or dimensions. If I remember right png was a file type that was used mostly in a graphics program for the mac. IE might only support that on macs or if you have something installed on windows that will work as a plugin for .png files.
| 7:01 pm on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
It was my understanding that .png was supported to one degree or another on most major browsers. The only unsopported features are generally the advanced transparency options and what-not. That shouldn't be the issue. It sounds like a browser/memory management issue to me...
| 2:53 pm on Jul 3, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I think it has to do with an internal mapping number of some sort. Let me give an example: In Microsoft Access, the largest report you could create is 22.7 inches wide. Why 22.7 inches? Because the internal unit used to do the layout on the report was something called a twip.
There are 1440 twips to the inch. The largest number that will fit in two bytes (signed) is 32767 (231-1). 32767 divided by 1440 = 22.7.
Windows has several mapping modes like that besides twips: hienglish, loenglish, himetric, lometric, text. I'll bet if you do the conversions, you'll find the maximum is the biggest number that fits into some bytes using one of these mapping modes.