EBL_Upload

TheEric · 2008-05-01 20:22:37

Oops! Yes, that’s fixed. Try it now.

masa · 2008-05-01 22:11:33

Thanks very much Eric,

it’s working now.

One more thing though…
it turned out I needed to add your .htaccess rules to my main .htaccess file in the web root rather than the Textpattern directory to make it work with mod_security on (I’m on Textdrive).

TheEric · 2008-05-02 15:44:29

Really? That’s retarded. Putting it in there disables mod_security for the entire domain instead of just the particular folder where upload.swf resides. If textdrive won’t allow per directory overrides, then they’re really retarded.

masa · 2008-05-02 19:07:07

Well, they do offer per directory options as far as I can tell from their webmin control panel: AllowOverride seems to be in effect, except it doesn’t seem to work or I’m misunderstanding something.

jstubbs · 2008-06-01 16:08:14

Eric, can you explain how the thumbnails works? I am trying to create 100×100px thumbs, and enter that into the two fields. However, I don’t get 100×100 thumbs, so assuming that the thumbs are proportional?

Any way around this? Cropping a future possibility?

And for the quality of the images – what is the difference between the high quality setting and leaving it off?

Edit: Toggling the “create thumbnail” to on, but not entering any dimensions, results in a thumb size of 100×75 in my case. The help says it will default to 100×100px..?

Last edited by jstubbs (2008-06-01 16:33:49)

TheEric · 2008-06-12 15:45:28

jstubbs wrote:

Eric, can you explain how the thumbnails works? I am trying to create 100×100px thumbs, and enter that into the two fields. However, I don’t get 100×100 thumbs, so assuming that the thumbs are proportional?

The thumbs are proportional indeed. They keep the same width/height ratio, so when you put in 100×100, it will resize the longest side to a maximum of 100 pixels, and the shorter side may be smaller than 100px. This was done to prevent distorted thumbnails.

Any way around this? Cropping a future possibility?

Currently, no. There isn’t a reliabile method of disabling this method, although the plugin code itself could be tweaked to remove the proportional resize. I can make it an option in the newer version I’m working on.

Cropping might be a possibility as well, but there are a couple of usability issues that would need to be sorted out first (e.g., where to start the crop, where to end, what to include, what to exclude, etc)

And for the quality of the images – what is the difference between the high quality setting and leaving it off?

The difference is speed and the quality of the thumbnails. With the HQ setting on, imagecopyresampled is invoked which makes a higher-quality thumbnail. With it off, imagecopyresized is invoked instead and quickly processes the thumbnail, at the expense of image quality.

Edit: Toggling the “create thumbnail” to on, but not entering any dimensions, results in a thumb size of 100×75 in my case. The help says it will default to 100×100px..?

Proportional resizing again. The default is 100×100 (although it can be changed in the configuration)

- Eric

TheEric · 2008-06-12 15:46:11

TheEric wrote:

jstubbs wrote:

Eric, can you explain how the thumbnails works? I am trying to create 100×100px thumbs, and enter that into the two fields. However, I don’t get 100×100 thumbs, so assuming that the thumbs are proportional?

The thumbs are proportional indeed. They keep the same width/height ratio, so when you put in 100×100, it will resize the longest side to a maximum of 100 pixels, and the shorter side may be smaller than 100px. This was done to prevent distorted thumbnails.

Any way around this? Cropping a future possibility?

Currently, no. There isn’t a reliabile method of disabling this method, although the plugin code itself could be tweaked to remove the proportional resize. I can make it an option in the newer version I’m working on.

Cropping might be a possibility as well, but there are a couple of usability issues that would need to be sorted out first (e.g., where to start the crop, where to end, what to include, what to exclude, etc)

And for the quality of the images – what is the difference between the high quality setting and leaving it off?

The difference is speed and the quality of the thumbnails. With the HQ setting on, imagecopyresampled is invoked which makes a higher-quality thumbnail. With it off, imagecopyresized is invoked instead and quickly processes the thumbnail, at the expense of image quality.

Edit: Toggling the “create thumbnail” to on, but not entering any dimensions, results in a thumb size of 100×75 in my case. The help says it will default to 100×100px..?

Proportional resizing again. The default is 100×100 (although it can be changed in the configuration)

- Eric

p.s. sorry for the late reply, I wasn’t getting subscription notices for some reason.

TheEric · 2008-06-24 12:44:26

How would you improve EBL_Upload?

I’ve begun work on the new version of EBL_Upload. While I’m working on revising it, speeding it up and sprinkling magical fairy dust on the code, I thought that it would be most prudent to ask what changes and additions people want. _Currently, the only planned major revision is the elimination of the flash interface, and relying upon a CSS/HTML front-end, while still using the SWF for the multiple-uplaod capability that flash allows.

Requested Features:

Crop from the center in a similiar fashion to that of TXP’s built in thumbnailing – Easy to do. Will be in the next release.

Last edited by TheEric (2008-06-24 13:37:14)

corra24 · 2008-06-24 13:09:21

TheEric wrote:

I’ve begun work on the new version of EBL_Upload. While I’m working on revising it, speeding it up and sprinkling magical fairy dust on the code, I thought that it would be most prudent to ask what changes and additions people want.

Cropping would be great.

Regards,

Corrado

masa · 2008-06-24 13:12:06

I’d like to see a crop feature that works just like the one in txp. Sometimes I need thumbs to be all square, so that would be a great improvement.

TheEric · 2008-06-24 13:18:14

If it were to crop the images square, which method would be the most ideal. “squishing” the image so that it fits within the bounds of a determined box, or cropping extraneous portions of the image beyond a determined point?

masa · 2008-06-24 13:24:31

I’d rather not have them squished.

Cropping from the center thereby discarding equal bits from left/right or top/bottom would be preferred. That’s how txp’s built-in cropping works, so the features would work the same.

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#25 2008-05-01 20:22:37

Re: EBL_Upload

#26 2008-05-01 22:11:33

Re: EBL_Upload

#27 2008-05-02 15:44:29

Re: EBL_Upload

#28 2008-05-02 19:07:07

Re: EBL_Upload

#29 2008-06-01 16:08:14

Re: EBL_Upload

#30 2008-06-12 15:45:28

Re: EBL_Upload

#31 2008-06-12 15:46:11

Re: EBL_Upload

#32 2008-06-24 12:44:26

Re: EBL_Upload

How would you improve EBL_Upload?

#33 2008-06-24 13:09:21

Re: EBL_Upload

#34 2008-06-24 13:12:06

Re: EBL_Upload

#35 2008-06-24 13:18:14

Re: EBL_Upload

#36 2008-06-24 13:24:31

Re: EBL_Upload

Board footer