Feature Request - Thumbnailing

[Unquick]

In regards to this previous post:

http://www.oscommerce.com/forums/viewtopic.php...light=thumbnail

 

I am going to put together a thumbnailing script using GD. I have not tried the one in the contributions section but it looks a little sketchy, considering you don't even have to modify the DB.

 

Anyways I'm wonding how many of you would be interested in such a MOD, and would you be willing to pay a small fee for it. I was thinking like $10-15 depending on the complexity and free installation if you need it.

 

I've been working my brain out on a similar script for a classified ads system so I should be able to apply it to osCom.

 

Here is an example: http://www.trilliandesigns.com/resizing/im...ge_original.php

 

I have made this script to make a thumbnail and also resize the main image to a standard size (because I hate clicking on an image to enlarge it and getting some huge resolutioned thing that I have resize mentally in my brain to figure out what it is). :shock:

 

To those that think it eats up server resources:

There should not be consered about server resources unless you are running BATCH jobs. If the server didn't have the resources to resize an image every now and then, they wouldn't have enabled GD in the first place. Not to mention, resizing an image that is <400KB isn't more of a strain on the server as when your just simply uploading it; it's vertually nothing.

 

Also let me know any other features that you might like to see in the script. :)

[Unquick]

Ok let me clear some stuff up, because I'm got chewed up by some people for even bringing up that fact that I want money for a mod on opensource software.

 

First off. A thumbnail is a resized image with a much smaller file size then the original. You need to go back to HTML 101 if you think that simply changing the width and height does anything to the file size.

 

Second. I realize there are some MODs out there that do a similar job; however, I had some features in mind that I havn't seen else where. For example:

 

- If you sell photographs, it would be nice to add a watermark on the image automaticly so people cain't just steal it.

- A feature where you can automaticly overlay text onto the image. For exmple you could have your website address in the bottom corner so that if some saves the image they know where it came from. Or maybe a copyright at the bottom.

 

That's just a few suggestions I have. Give me some feedback.

[loxly]

Photoshop, fireworks, Ulead, and many others....

 

All create web galleries that include watermarking images, creating thumbnails and large images.

 

If you are a photographer you should have one of these programs.

 

If *you* have a server that allows you to do this on the fly, more power to you. If not, do it offline, ftp the images up and be even more professional.

 

((sigh))

 

Back to work.....

[Unquick]

I don?t agree with your mentality. Your argument doesn?t make much sense and to the contrary it seams that you would find something wrong with the best of ideas.

 

All create web galleries that include watermarking images, creating thumbnails and large images.

 

Do theses programs interface with OsCom? No? Oh? So I guess you don?t have an Ecom solution using these products. Since there are so many other ways of doing things, then why use osCom at all? This is in essence what you are saying.

 

If *you* have a server that allows you to do this on the fly, more power to you. If not, do it offline, ftp the images up and be even more professional.

 

I hate this popular misconception that you need to be on a dedicated server to do this kind of stuff. Well I don?t host my site with GeoCities, maybe you should consider switching hosts because I?ve written software for clients that do this type of thing for up to a couple hundred photo?s daily and no major load on the server. Actually the average CPU load is at 1-2% with what I would image are hundreds of other website on their shared service.

 

Honestly I hate this popular misconception. It?s one thing to be talking ~on the fly~ OR even batch (yes I admit it?s a strain on a server) but interactive processing isn?t going to create a problem for most people.

[loxly]

A. I am a professional photographer. Over 30 years experience.

 

B. I am using osc for many stores and am working on a photo gallery application as we speak

 

C. I have over 100 web sites of my own and have hosted on all the free services and currently host on shared servers, hoping to convert to a dedicated server in the next few months.

 

D. Batch processing is possible with the above programs, in the ~$100 versions as well as the full versions.

 

E. On the fly isn't always possible, either because of YOUR server or because of the CUSTOMER'S browser.

 

F. I am not a negative person, you asked for feedback, I gave you feedback

 

THERE IS NOT A SOLUTION THAT WILL WORK FOR EVERYONE ON EVERY SERVER. PERIOD.

 

If you want to take this debate private, bring it on, [email protected]

 

I will post a store in My Stores in the next 24 hours that will show you a few of my talents and will show you the power of offline image processing.

 

If you don't know how to use these programs to create the images you need and then ftp them to a server then it is not I who has the problem. Direct interfacing with osc is not necessary....

[Stuart]

Now Now ... c'mon, we're all trying to get this thing to work as best as possible.

 

For my part I'd love to see something that will do this without having to use an external program, but in certain cases this just isn't possible, as Milan has pointed out. and this will be the overriding factor in any solution

 

Loxly - you're quite right in everything you say

 

Just to add to the conversation somewhat so that other users may benefit from other's experience: I have been a professional web designer for some years now and I have found that the best solution to any pictorial issues is to look at your requirements for the pictures. If you are only trying to demonstrate a simple item, product or whatever, then a 250pixel x 250pixel square image @ 20-30K will be more than enough to give the user the idea. Photoshop is capable of sorting that out very quickly from your original and OSC is capable of displaying the resized images at an acceptable speed on a 56K modem. Check out the keep image proportions contribution which will not alter the aspect of your image.

 

If, like Loxly, you are a photographer, then clearly a better quality image is required and loading speed may well become an issue. Then thumbnails could be necessary.

 

I have no problem with members selling their excellent contributions, but please give other less experienced members the option of choosing the correct method for them - in this case it may be that Milan's solution costing $15 might be the cost effective answer. However, I would also recommend that everyone should try a professional package to carry out complicated image processing. there are quite a few. I use Photoshop and Fireworks and thumbs are batch processed quite effectively and turn out at around 1-4K each depending on the image.

 

None of my OSC sites need thumbs because the images displayed are all around 20K ... but then I have never had any customers wanting photographic sites. For those that do, check out vvgallery in the image contributions, this might be just what you're looking for.

 

All the best to everyone

Stuart

[loxly]

Actually with photos at 20 K you SHOULD be using thumbnails.

 

Also the rules of the forum clearing state that all contributions discussed and offered here must be GPL and free for the membership.

 

I don't have a problem with paying for appropriate solutions either, but advertising them here is WRONG and saying that your way is the only way is also WRONG.

 

over and out for me....

[Stuart]

OK Deborah

 

Yes, I accept this point of view ... but I find that OSC loads pictures at around the 20K mark with an acceptable speed --- this is an acceptable speed for me based on a 56K modem (about the same speed that say Amazon loads its pictures). Having checked now - and to be fair to you, most of my pictures seem to come in around 15K, so apologies there if anyone was mislead.

 

I think the point for anyone reading this thread now would be that not everyone has the same acceptable limits ... it would depend on the compromise you were willing to make before spending any excess cash to gain perhaps a small percentage when loading a page ... my advice would be to decide how large your images really need to be.

 

As for the other issue ... I'm not in favour of anyone breaking the rules.

 

Stuart

[loxly]

Whether 15-20k is acceptable will depend entirely on how many photos per page are loading, and how big the other graphics on the page are.

 

Let's not forget that the background, the buttons, the box tops, ANY other graphics on the page adds to the page load time. Add to that flash files, audio files, banners........

 

And there are still folks with 56k connections that don't really get 56k, it's more like 28-40k. I would love it if the whole world had P4's with high speed cable modems (my current cable service pretends to be a 56k dialup at times). But they don't, there are still 386's with dialup and AOL and there is WebTV and a host of other people not using ideal (from our point of view) equipment.

 

We can't please everyone, but thumbnails are important and dynamically generated isn't always the answer.

 

Get to know your graphics program and ftp better ;)

[Stuart]

Yep, I agree 100% with that ... relatively little knowledge of a couple of good programs can work wonders, and until we all get cable - compromise would be a major consideration.

 

So I suppose, practically, for most of us it would be something like mopics from the contribution forums and a program that will batch process images to thumbnails.

 

Did we agree on which was the most suitable contribution? I think Deborah listed a whole load in another thread and gave a good synopsis of them all. A search for image thumbnails should find it.

 

For the program side, I like Fireworks for batch processing thumbs ... but I'm sure theres a cheaper method. I guess the keyword for anyone with lots of pics who might be reading this hoping to get something cost effective together would be "batch process" ... I have seen a few cheaper programs that don't offer this facility.

 

For anyone with the server side capability, I did download thumbs3 from the contributions. Its dead easy to install, but I have not had any time to evaluate it as I'm still running that site on my local server for development - so I can't evaluate the speed gains.

 

Good luck ... let me know if anyone sorts this out using OSC alone.

Stuart