Photo Gallery Forums

I'm not sure whether this was already mentioned or not

Would be nice to have settings for MAX image resolution in "?pop" mode.
I upload 2880px images (just to have hi-res file in case I will need) but want to show to the user file in max of 1200px

Makes sense ... I need to think about this one though, as that setting should perhaps also apply to listing other large images in for example the slideshow and full vertical layouts. Also, the original logic was built around the idea that A) 1280px may need to be the largest "resize" (because of server), so B) The full image should preferably be the next size up ...

You got me thinking!

The main reason why I'd like to have this personaly, is to have the ability to easily keep my site following the standards in a long run.
F.ex, these days, the most popular resolution is about 1366x768px and rising quickly (I remember 800px standards). Having files optimised for current displays (~1200px) I'll have to modify and reupload all the files each time the standards rise.
2880px (I guess would not be beaten quickly) has enough reserve of resolution for many years.

I'm glad I got you thinking about this!

When you say "popular resolutions", are you referring to a max resolution of an image that a photographer would be willing display publicly? Because apart from that aspect, the web has changed much since a few years ago, and there is no "default" size anymore, since images should be served to best suit the device and layout they are being requested for.

Most serious services (x3, Flickr, picasa) alread do this, and the only reason to implement a "max size", would be if you are concerned about protecting high-res versions of photography (which is a factor of course). Back in the days before mobile, it was logical to promote a size like 800px, simply because there were no smartphones, no retina screens and no responsive web design patterns. One size fits-em-all.

Of course, your point is still valid regardless, because it should ultimately be possible to load images larger than 1280 without having to request the original size, which might be oversized.

By saying popular resolutions, I meant this:
http://www.rapidtables.com/web/dev/scre ... istics.htm

the web has changed much since a few years ago, and there is no "default" size anymore, since images should be served to best suit the device and layout they are being requested for.

Of course. I have even made a small example of how this works, to explain a friend of mine The best way arround would be to have the images fit the actual viewer screen size. No doubt.
But as soon as I can see, images in "?pop" mode are served in full resolution of a file, not respecting screen size at all (or am I wrong?).

Anyways, "Image max" variable has other benefits, as you wrote yourself.

Artur wrote:By saying popular resolutions, I meant this:
http://www.rapidtables.com/web/dev/scre ... istics.htm

That is an overview of screen resolutions. I don't see how that in 2015 would decide should be "max" size when this can be handled automatically.

Artur wrote:But as soon as I can see, images in "?pop" mode are served in full resolution of a file, not respecting screen size at all (or am I wrong?).

Actually, the popup viewer also calculates in real-time what image should be served to the current device. If you are on a small non-retina iphone, it should not waste bandwidth on serving a full image. However, on large desktops, a modern website should serve satisfactory modern-sized images. I may need to tweak some options here for popup 2.0 which is around the corner, but essentially images are scaled also in the popup.

Artur wrote:Anyways, "Image max" variable has other benefits, as you wrote yourself.

Although we may need to do some tweaks, the only single benefit I can think of is if you are concerned about protecting extra-large size images, but want to upload them anyway to have them serve as resize-base. I can't see any other reason why max-limit would have any usage if we reach a point where a "perfect" image is served for each request.

Just to add, I do think we need to look into this, I am just not sure if it should be a max-size setting, which ultimately serves no other logical purpose than protecting high-res images.

The only reason why the "largest" resize is currently at 1280 px, and next size up is "original", is because 1280 seems to be within margin of the "magic" limit where shared hosts report "memory exhausted". Ultimately, we would have additional array 1600 px and perhaps even 2048, but resizing to these sizes would more than often create an error on shared hosts.

Initially, the logic was that "original" should be created at "max_size", so this will be served everywhere when 1280 is "too small". Therefore, in our example galleries, the "originals" are created at a generous 2048 px ... which basically should have our backs covered. However, I doubt everyone is following this "recommendation".

Essentially, 1280 already is the max_size apart from the original. If we allow a different max_size, for example 1440 px, that means many servers would "choke" when they can't resize images to that size. We kinda have a dilemma, but thanks for bringing it to my attention ...

Actually, the popup viewer also calculates in real-time what image should be served to the current device. If you are on a small non-retina iphone, it should not waste bandwidth on serving a full image. However, on large desktops, a modern website should serve satisfactory modern-sized images. I may need to tweak some options here for popup 2.0 which is around the corner, but essentially images are scaled also in the popup.

This was added at some update perhaps? I'm asking because I'm still on beta.v2 (or v3, don't remember exactly) and my images in "?pop" mode are NOT scaled to viewer screen size (I have 1280px screen but images are served to me in full 2880px).
http://phillip.com.pl/x3/galleries/food/

This should be an original features. Your "1280" screen is non-retina? If it is retina, effective pixel-width would be 2560 px, so it would naturally request a larger images. I just tried it from my iphone, and it serves smaller images.

Yes, it's retina (13" rMBP), although I don't use native resolution. I have set my screen to 1280x800px.
So, that's the case. I got it now

I wrote a blog post about optimizing images. See post:
Optimizing Images for Photo Gallery Websites