PDA

View Full Version : full resolution large format on web



williamtheis
16-Jul-2010, 07:26
I've been playing with posting large format on the web in full resolution. Debating whether to scale it down so that it would load faster but here's a sample 8x10 scan

http://imageworkx.us/digital/ClearCreekTree.html

comments?

Sascha Welter
16-Jul-2010, 07:48
Using Zoomify (http://www.zoomify.com) is a nice option sometimes. It's a simple Flash image viewer, that allows to get an overview and "zoom in" to a big resolution image.

Two thoughts:
- I wouldn't call it "full resolution" myself, since an 8x10"s "full resolution" isn't really a given standard.
- Given a monitor that seems to be a bit smaller than yours, I have to scroll up and down to see different parts of the image. It would be best to dynamically set the size of the zoomify viewer, maybe there is a way to do that.

Walter Calahan
16-Jul-2010, 08:29
Why?

williamtheis
16-Jul-2010, 09:07
point taken. so instead of "full resolution" maybe "high resolution" or would you suggest something else? I used "full" because this is unreduced from the resolution of the raw scan of the image

do you still have a problem with it being too large if you maximize the window on your browser and then hit f11 key (on PC)? I chose 1000x1000 pixels but could pick something smaller...

as to "Why?": is the question why post images? (obvious answer: feedback) or is it why is this posting too large for a small monitor? (it's a trial.. i may do smaller later depending on feedback I get)... or does the "Why?" refer to something else?

IanMazursky
16-Jul-2010, 09:21
Zoomify is a really great solution to use for displaying a full image. I have used it a few times on my site and for clients.
It works by breaking up a large image into smaller tiles then compressing them into hundreds of little jpgs (under 100k each).
The trick is to make the Zoomify player window small enough to fit on your viewing audiences screen.
Its a slow process, export..wait...test, export..wait...test...until you get it just right. But the results are well worth the time and effort.

The one on your site is a bit large (on my macbook pro) and i have to scroll a lot to see the whole image.
Its fine on my other systems here that have 21" or larger monitors but i would still reduce the size.
There was a study done on the average monitor size and resolution for web surfers a while back.
I think the average is still 15" for web surfers or maybe it went to 17".

IIRC the Zoomify box is a set height and width when you export, probably because of the little jpgs that make up the image.
Zoomify has a few different packages available, the free version and a number of paid versions that can let you remove their logos and other great features.

One other interesting aspect of the Zoomify player is that it make it much harder for someone to copy (steal) your image from your website.
They could only capture a small portion of the image or the overall but nothing terribly useful.

domaz
16-Jul-2010, 09:25
Actually I don't think it would be all that hard for them to capture the image using today's automated web downloaders. If Zoomify names the tile files in a consistent way (likely) then all they have to do is figure out what the names are- grab all the tiles and then use a program to put the tiles all back together. The tools are out there since this kind of tiling is a common way to display maps as well.

IanMazursky
16-Jul-2010, 09:34
Forgot to add that a lot of the PC's i have worked on still have a resolution set for 1024x768 or something in that range.
You also have to take into account the browsers top bar, bottom bar and scroll bar.
Windows task bar if it is not hidden, Mac the Dock if its not hidden and the menu bar on a mac.
All of those eat up valuable browser real estate, maybe 10-20% (even on large monitors).

Start in the 500-700 pixel range. You can always make one page for small monitors and one for large ones.

williamtheis
16-Jul-2010, 09:50
sounds like a good idea! I will also look into Zoomify's products. this was the free plug in in Photoshop CS4... and yes, i was aware of theft. I'm sure you can rip this and restitch in theory but in practice this could be a lot of work. anyone know how secure Zoomify is?

jp
16-Jul-2010, 11:13
I've used it and I like it.

Zoomify builds the thumbnails on your development workstation and they get uploaded with the zoomify flash script into a public web area of your web server. Nothing stops anyone from sniffing/proxying the traffic to get the file names to gather. So it's not secure as far as banking goes, but it'd be way too much work to reassemble an image from all the puzzle pieces.

If I wanted to steal a medium-res image from zoomify, (or any more elaborately "protected content") I'd make it look nice on my monitor, and use the screen capture utility in my operating system or gimp. Can't stop that. Specific to zoomify, one could also screen capture multiple views from zoomify and stitch them back together for a high res copy.

IanMazursky
16-Jul-2010, 11:39
Its not that easy to troll for images on a server that does not allow directory listings.
The bots can see the ones that are part of web pages but the ones in directories that do not link to a web page are harder to seek out.
Considering how very small these jpgs are and how many of them there are, its a miserable task to even try to piece the together.
I took a look at one of the images i used Zoomify with and each tile group has over 250 images per folder (4 folders total).

To make it a little bit more annoying for anyone looking to steal the image, put the Zoomify in a shadow box page.
That will keep the originating page behind the shadow box and give it a neat look.
They can always do a screen capture of any viewable image on the web.

I still cant think of anyone trying to stitch it manually. Im sure someone can come up with an app but its a lot of work for little reward.
Secure is a relative word. Web site are inherently not secure, you are putting a lot out there with little protection.
Nothing on the web is truly secure. Banks, Emails, Public government sites, private companies have all been hacked.

On a side note: PayPal did an interesting thing, they provided some users with a VeriSign token FOBs. Its a great system that ive used many times for VPN's.
When you click the button on the FOB, it generates a pseudo random number that the sever recognizes as the current number in its string.
It then lets you login to the site. So you have the user name, password and token number on top of HTTPS. Much more secure.
Btw, i say pseudo random number because they use a string key to generate the random numbers.
If someone got a hold or figured it out and knew the algorithm (extremely unlikely), then poof you've hacked it (well you need the user name and pass also, not that hard).

Anyway, You can transfer your folders up to the site using SFTP or WEBDAV but still if someone really wants to get in, im sure they could.
You can protect the directories with realms, use HTTPS, setup a dynamic contact management system........but still a really good hacker could circumvent it.

If you have a real problem with putting your images up, stamp a watermark in the middle of the image and on the Zoomify image before processing.
Even if they do a screen capture, they are stuck with a mostly useless image.
Ive put it in the middle a few times but its very annoying to viewers. Instead i opted for the bottom right, less secure but less annoying.
If im putting images up on the web, i know that someone will eventually capture/steal them, its a fact of life.
You have to weigh protecting your images with the users experience on your site.
If you make it to hard for them to view images, they will leave. If you make the image hard to make out with a huge watermark, they will leave.

Security on the web is painful at best. You have to roll with the punches as my dad says. He makes enterprise web software so i know a bit about this.

ic-racer
16-Jul-2010, 17:36
Maybe I'm missing something here but that little image looks like its the size of a digital camera sensor rather than large format.

mandoman7
16-Jul-2010, 19:12
On the internet, it seems people have a particularly short attention span. If it takes time to bring images up at all, then some surfers won't stay at your site. To a certain extent it seems like it has to work for the lowest common denominator (small monitors) or there will be problems.

williamtheis
17-Jul-2010, 09:51
the "little image" is actually the thumbnail

point taken about attention span. then there is the problem of being found at all

williamtheis
17-Jul-2010, 09:53
the "little image" is actually the thumbnail

point taken about attention span. then there is the problem of being found at all

but i guess that once someone stumbles onto your site you must do your best to keep them

Ben Syverson
17-Jul-2010, 11:55
I've been thinking of doing an iPad app that lets you zoom "all the way in" to an 8x10. It would be an adaptation of an art book app I'm making.

There are so many photographer portfolio apps out there, and they're all uniformly terrible. This wouldn't be the same as seeing large prints, but at least it would give you a bigger view than the web.

williamtheis
18-Jul-2010, 08:53
the iPad/iPhone app would be more interesting if i had an iPad/IPhone... which I have no plans of ever owning. likely this is true for many of the people browsing out there so could the app also do PC/MAC?

as to "uniformly terrible"... that is correct. and nothing is the same as seeing very large prints except for the "lightbox effect" of seeing them in transmission rather than reflection that you have on the web