hi,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Set Hallström <pub...@sakrecoer.com> wrote: > On 2016-06-13 16:55, Christian Mandel wrote: >> Am 13.06.2016 um 15:42 schrieb johannes hanika: >>> - not sure we can get away completely without thumbnail support from >>> our side, i'd hate to leave the rescaling to the browser after >>> downloading 12MB of jpg.. >> >> Just a little question: Since the browser window will be any size, >> wouldn't that mean that the browser will rescale anyway, independent of >> the image size? Or do you mean that the browser applies its bad scaling >> to a well-scaled image close to its final size, with a better result >> than direct bad scaling from the maximum size? Something along scaling >> in multiple steps? If it is the latter, do you have some references that >> explain the benefits etc.? > > I'd be interested too. After reading Johannes's mail, i tried with 20mb > of jpg, and when scrolling, the computer is put at hard task. So i > assumed it is matter of not overloading the browser. yes, i was worried about bad scaling a bit, but mostly about loading a large jpg over slow connections and then displaying the downsampled version. seems like a waste of bandwidth and client CPU power. -jo ___________________________________________________________________________ darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
