For quite a while, I've maintained that the so-called hi-res image option should be removed from jAlbum (not to be confused with HiDPI Images, which are a different animal entirely). It's outlived its original purpose, and is now just a needless complication: http://jalbum.net/forum/thread.jspa?threadID=49861
I was just looking at some changes in my skins (Gromit, Matrix, MatrixSlide), and it occurred to me that I could stop waiting for David to put the nail in the coffin of hi-res images, and just alter my skins to drop support for them. It would get rid of some code, while at the same time making it easier to introduce some other little changes (nothing major).
But I have no idea about whether doing that would produce howls of protest from users of my skins (it's happened before). So here's the question: are any users of my skins using the Link to hi-res via scaled images option, and if so, what is the reason?
They are handy though for users wanting to create lifeboat files of settings, images and even the skin used. As your previous posts, having them as an upload option rather than as an album option gets my vote.
They are handy though for users wanting to create lifeboat files of settings, images and even the skin used.
There's already a way to save the settings (along with titles, comments, etc., etc.), though I wish the lifeboat were part of the Make Album process, via a checkbox in the settings, rather than an on-demand external tool, or something that's available only if you use the jAlbum uploader (for my own web host, I much prefer working with FileZilla). Not sure I'd want to roll the skin into the lifeboat, though even a large skin would add only a couple of MB to the file size.
When it comes to the images, users should be backing up their originals. To me, the hi-res images aren't significantly better as backups than the slide images, especially when people start using image bounds like 1600x750 (the Matrix default). Heck, the default image bounds in Fully are 10000x1080!
ShowLite uses hi Res for its magnifying function. It may also use them when alternating between either a lightbox popup or a full slide image.
In the scheme of things, IMVHO, this seems a solution looking for a problem. Meanwhile, where is a video view in Edit function, a (simple) HTML editor option, pointing arrows available in Effects, optional voice recorder files describing images, or a standardized folder icon (like the super imposed video icon)
ShowLite uses hi Res for its magnifying function.
Wouldn't the original do just as well?
It may also use them when alternating between either a lightbox popup or a full slide image.
Hmmm... Why, since they're both being displayed in the same viewport?
In the scheme of things, IMVHO, this seems a solution looking for a problem.
I know it may seem that way, but my original notion of killing off the hi-res images didn't just spring out of nowhere. It was triggered by several things.
First, David had mentioned that he'd like to get rid of the "link to this via this" nonsense, which often confuses newbies, and replace it with more straightforward "what images to include in the album" checkboxes - thumbnails, scaled, originals. Getting rid of one of the choices makes that simpler.
Second, I've long agitated to have videos be treated like images, so that you could include a processed video (analogous to a scaled image), but also optionally the original, untouched video. In that scheme, what is a hi-res version of the video?
Related, when coding I've often been plagued by the fact that originalPath points to the hi-res image. Ugh. Even as we speak, I've had to wrestle with that bit of strangeness while trying to do something else. Rather than clean up the variables, but break some skins in the process, why not just get rid of the source of the problem?
Now, with the introduction of HiDPI images, we have the bizarre result that a scaled image will often be larger than a hi-res image. This, I think, makes no sense whatsoever. Get rid of one or the other.
In an email, mrag raises the problem caused by the freaking huge images coming out of DSLR's these days, one that had occurred to me, as well. They're awfully large for sharing - mine are 6000x4000 pixels, and typically run to more than 6MB. So maybe the old hi-res images are still a good way to provide for download of something bigger than the scaled image.
But why not use HiDPI images, instead? Say your image bounds are 1200x750, a decent size for any skin that's even "simple" responsive (like Minimal). If you choose HiDPI images, you'll give viewers with Retina displays a better image to look at, and at the same time, a user who simply downloads the slide image gets an image that's 2400x1500, roughly the same as a hi-res image, whose bounds are 2048x2048. And now there are only two sets of images - thumbnails and slides - rather than three.