[Tom]

I'm experimenting with larger thumbnail sizes.  Historically we thumbnailed vertical images at 240 pixels high and horizontal images at 180 pixels high.  I stretched the latter to 240 pixels to see how it looks.  I think it looks cleaner matching the height of vertical thumbnails.  It also provides for a more immersive viewing experience with 33% larger horizontal thumbnails.  The thumbnails may look pixelated since I've only zoomed them on screen for now.  They will look better after the thumbnails are rebuilt but I'd like to get feedback first.

[neek]

I like this better on both mobile and desktop.  For the bigger size as well as better alignment with portraits.  But are you actually able to re-scale all historical images?  For lots of older reports I've noticed the originals aren't available anymore.  If regeneration can't be done it might be nice to keep older thumbs at their current size if possible.  I have a deep dislike for browser scaling.

[Tom]

Thanks for the feedback.  The plan is to rebuild all thumbnails.  If the image is gone we would keep the old thumbnail and only zoom it as necessary to match the other thumbnails displayed on the same row.

[GaliWalker]

I like the larger sizes of the thumbnails; however, to me they don't look sharp; and this is for newer photos, which look sharp when seen in larger size. It feels as if the smaller sizes have been blown up, rather than new thumbnails constructed from the original photos...?

--------------
'Gali'Walker => 'Mountain-pass' walker
bobbi: "...don't you ever forget your camera!"
Photography: https://www.flickr.com/photos/shahiddurrani/albums

[Tom]

Yes, I haven't rebuilt any of them yet.  Wanted to get feedback first.

[GaliWalker]

Gotcha. In that case a thumbs up from me.

--------------
'Gali'Walker => 'Mountain-pass' walker
bobbi: "...don't you ever forget your camera!"
Photography: https://www.flickr.com/photos/shahiddurrani/albums

[Tom]

Flickr thumbnails have been rebuilt so things should look a lot less pixelated now.  Next up is to rebuild thumbnails for non-flickr images.

We're still displaying thumbnails larger than actual size in the following scenarios but I think the pros outweigh the cons:

1)  Allow horizontal thumbnails to display larger than actual size when a row contains both horizontal and vertical thumbnails.  For example, instead of displaying this:

v v v v v v v
v v v v v v v
v v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h

Or shrinking the vertical thumbnail 33.3% to the height of the horizontal thumbnail:

v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h

Split the difference in height and display the horizontal thumbnail 16.7% lager than actual size:

v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h h h
v v v v v v    h h h h h h h h h h h

2)  Allow horizontal thumbnails in a row to display 20% larger than actual size as needed to fill the remaining width of the page.  Things may look a little pixelated in this scenario but I think the tradeoff is worth it to justify the images.

Here are a couple TRs where you can see it in action (also note the much larger thumbnails for panos in the second example).

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8006605

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8028925