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.
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.
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.
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...?
In the process of bumping thumbnail sizes again. Thumbnails should display up to 50% larger than before (depends on your display width). This only applies to images added since early April when we bumped the lightbox display to 2048 pixels.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).