1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Hi-Res Loupe Tool - Like or No Like?

Discussion in 'Hi-Res' started by Amin Sabet, Jul 15, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    I installed a script that lets you mouseover large images (which get auto-resized to fit your browser window) and pixel peep the original size. For example, try mousing over this image:

    15468525846_f26c522812_o.


    Should we keep it? Too distracting?
     
  2. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Example #2:

    19514566829_1c6153e6a6_o.
     
  3. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    When you say original size, is that the 1300px long edge size? Or the full full size? I can see this being useful when discussing issues and comparing stuff on full size images. Not sure I'd bother pixel peeping when simply enjoying images though.
     
  4. osterdahl

    osterdahl Mu-43 Regular

    64
    Nov 8, 2011
    Sweden
    Leif Österdahl
    For me, it feels distracting. Maybe I get used to it.
     
  5. QualityBuiltIn

    QualityBuiltIn Mu-43 Veteran

    351
    Jan 1, 2011
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Love it. Thank you.
     
  6. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    I like it on the image of the balloons. I tried on the last two uploads in the "Show Churches" thread and it did not seem to magnify at all.
     
  7. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    Maybe there's a way to disable? I can't see myself peeping unless I'm actually home in LR looking at my own images. I'm more a big picture guy. Put me in the distracting camp. Neat idea, but not needed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Mr Moo

    Mr Moo Rocket builder, collector of vintage air guitars

    299
    Sep 17, 2012
    SE Virginia
    Mike
    I can't say it any better, totally agree.

    Me no likey. :(
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  9. Wolfeye

    Wolfeye Mu-43 Regular

    64
    Mar 20, 2015
    Iowa
    I like it. Maybe you should make a poll to see where opinion lies.
     
  10. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    I was wondering what was happening when I first saw it and I found it distracting. Once I figured it out, I think its a good idea and a decent implementation. I would vote to keep it.
     
  11. piggsy

    piggsy Mu-43 All-Pro

    Not really enjoying the effect TBH. It auto-starts if you have the cursor anywhere over the image, which makes scrolling a page of images act weird - like - the default action to look at an image set uninterrupted involves actively moving the cursor away from the image, which just seems like the wrong way for it to work for me. And I'd personally rather have clickable thumbs of anything I'd want to look at full size. Not a fan of linking the largest size of something, some of the image threads are gonna get pretty big bandwidth wise. Also interferes with all the default right click behaviours.
     
  12. phigmov

    phigmov Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 4, 2010
    I like it but it did cause my browser CPU utilisation to spike (not particularly scientific - I have several tabs open) and the page load seemed slower - does the full size image load or does it magnify sections on the fly ?

    Chrome developer tools also seems to show some Flash elements ? Not sure if they're new or old ? Only mentioned this because of the recent 0-days for Adobe Flash and the push by browser developers to drop it - Firefox blocks Flash, and Facebook calls for its death
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Brian Beezley

    Brian Beezley Mu-43 All-Pro

    I find it distracting and it doesn't do anything on many images. Can you make it optional per user?

    Brian
     
  14. Timmy

    Timmy Mu-43 Regular

    110
    Dec 3, 2013
    Wiltshire - UK
    I don't mind the affect - but this example slows down/stutters my Macbook - those 2 hi-res images download 30MB from flickr into the browser - A long thread full of images like that could really affect browser performance / use up all someones RAM. Might not be ideal on tablets / lower powered netbooks (or my slow mac!).
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    I think regardless we should encourage a max 1600px guideline other than threads which are specifically labeled with a "Hi res - bandwidth warning" label or equivalent.
     
  16. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    I disabled it for now. Will play with it to see if I can make it less distracting / resource heavy.
     
  17. Aushiker

    Aushiker Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 12, 2014
    Fremantle, Western Australia
    Andrew
    I am on a Mac using Firefox and can click on the image if I want it bigger. Maybe this is a comprise?

    Andrew
     
  18. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Okay, how's this? Loupe tool only active in the new "Hi-Res" subforum. That work for everyone?
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    This strikes me as a reasonable approach.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  20. MoonMind

    MoonMind Mu-43 Top Veteran

    626
    Oct 25, 2014
    Switzerland
    Matt
    I like it this way - for the purpose of scrutinising images, it's indeed useful. It makes looking at details very easy and straightforward. I wouldn't have minded having it available at all times, but the solution is sensible in order not to put off others.

    M.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.