Re: [public-respimg] <none>

One of the problems with this approach is that the image resampling
(scaling) isn't simply gabbing each 10th pixel on each 10th row, but is
typically some sort if interpolation based on the 10x10 collection of
pixels being collapsed into one pixel. This would probably create an very
jagged scaling with poor color representation.  Interlace progressive image
rendering may be something you can implement with such an approach.

Here is a good visual example of progressive vs interlaced progressive
downloads...
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/12/progressive-image-rendering.html.
I've been a long time fan of progressive interlaced images, but my
relationship with the internet began at 300bps.

If you're interested in learning more about the execution with PNG, follow
the link from the previous to: http://nuwen.net/png.html. It has a good
demonstration of different imageformats doing progressive loading..




On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Mohsen Nabiloo Azimi <msnazi@gmail.com>wrote:

> Pardon my lack of research if I'm bringing up something that is already
> discussed. I've looked around but didn't see anything like what I have in
> mind in archives.
>
> This is how I see responsive images problem in current web:
>
> We want one image in markup but that image should work great in large
> screens, small screens and screens with high DPI. At the same time, we
> might change image size and even image crop dependent on viewport width,
> orientation or media type.
>
> I think browsers can take care of this problem with progressive image
> loading technologies that are available for WebP and JPEG. How? By
> following this simple rule:
>
> Load enough pixels to satisfy current view of image in current screen.
>
> Web developer would put a <img tag with source to the largest image
> they have. Browser will determine how much of that image should be
> downloaded based on how that image is presented in web page.
>
> For example, if an image is 2000 by 2000 pixels, but it's resized to 200
> by 200 pixels, browser would not download whole image and scale it down.
> It will actually just download enough pixels to cover the area that
> image is covering. And likewise, if image is sized to 300 by 300 pixels
> browser would download that much "pixels".
>
> Have anybody thought about this before?
>
> Thanks,
> Mohsen <http://mohsenweb.com>
>



-- 
Darrel O'Pry
The Spry Group, LLC.
http://www.spry-group.com
718-355-9767 x101