Can't change size of images in react-bootstrap carousel - react-bootstrap

I can't seem to increase the size of the images in my carousel. I'd like the images to be larger. No matter what the size of the source image, they all appear the same size when I run the carousel. I suspect I need to increase the size of the viewport, but can't figure out how to do that.
function Work() {
return (
<Carousel fade indicators={false} controls={false} pause={false}>
<Carousel.Item interval={5000}>
<img
className="d-block w-100"
src={newsBlur}
alt="News Flash blurred"
/>
<Carousel.Caption style={styles.carouselCaption}>
<h3>
News Flash gathers news based on the user's
news category preferences.
</h3>
</Carousel.Caption>
</Carousel.Item>
</Carousel>
);
}

It turns out my images were actually displaying full screen, which is the default setting for the react-bootstrap carousel. My images were over a transparent background making them appear to only cover part of the screen. When I resized the image, the component just stretched it to fill the full screen, so it didn't appear to do anything. I needed to re-create my images with a different ratio of transparent back ground and viewable image.

Related

image breakpoint srcset - what to do with larger images used in middle viewport sizes?

I've been working on a new responsive website design and I have a gallery containing a grid of images which when the browser viewport is 768px or above spans 4 columns wide (so each image is about 25% of the viewport). Anything 767px or lower is only 1 column wide (making it full width at lesser resolutions).
The images at desktop size (over 768px) should be 220px wide (4 image columns).
Between 480px and 767px should be upto 420px wide (1 image column).
And mobile size (under 479px) should be upto 260px wide (1 image column).
I have three sources for each image. 220px, 260px and 420px.
As you can see from the above, the sizes don't follow the normal conventions of the smaller the viewport the smaller the image, so I've been researching and trying various options.
Following suggestions, I've been using Google Chrome in incognito mode and also inprivate browsing for internet explorer, with the browser viewports started small before loading the page, etc... to ensure any changes I've been making get updated.
The current code I've come to is the closest I've got to making it work and it is following an answer to someone's query (similar to mine) here on stack overflow. However, when trying to implement it I can't seem to get the browser to load the right images still, it always loads the larger 420px wide image.
my code is currently like so:
<img sizes="(min-width: 767px) 420px, 100vm"
srcset="images/thumbs/image_420.jpg 420w,
images/thumbs/image_260.jpg 260w,
images/thumbs/image_220.jpg 220w"
src="images/thumbs/image_220.jpg"
alt="example image"
/>
A second query whilst I'm on the subject. Would it be best to set the default img src in my scenario to the 260px image? As this would cover both desktop and mobile browsers in the event the srcset isn't understood and only the middle sized viewport (460-767px) would suffer. Or is it always best to set the default image to the smallest size?
Any suggestions would be appreciated, thank you.
-- EDIT --
Just a quick update, I thought I'd logically figured it out yesterday but it didn't work so I'm not sure I still understand the whole concept of the calculations. My latest edit looks like so:
<img sizes="(min-width: 460px) 420px, (min-width: 768px) 220px, 100vm"
srcset="images/thumbs/image_420.jpg 420w,
images/thumbs/image_260.jpg 260w,
images/thumbs/image_220.jpg 220w"
src="images/thumbs/image_260.jpg"
alt="example image"
/>
So in my mind I think that the sizes section I've listed states... if viewport is at least 460px then use the 420px image, else if viewport is at least 768px use the 260px image. Then the last 100vm means otherwise use whichever is best at full viewport width.
I've also amended the default file to be the 260px file as this fits most of the viewport sizes if something hasn't been recognised.
However, the above edit still loads only the 420px image.
Any suggestions would be very appreciated. Even if its just to correct my logic!
sizes is evaluated left-to-right. So the order is important. If the viewport is 1000px, then the first media condition (min-width: 460px) will match, and so that size 420px is chosen, and the rest of the sizes attribute is not evaluated at all.
Also, the unit should be vw, not vm.
So it should be:
<img sizes="(min-width: 768px) 220px, (min-width: 460px) 420px, 100vw"
srcset="images/thumbs/image_420.jpg 420w,
images/thumbs/image_260.jpg 260w,
images/thumbs/image_220.jpg 220w"
src="images/thumbs/image_260.jpg"
alt="example image"
/>
As for your second query, technically you can choose any image you like (even one not listed in srcset), but your reasoning makes sense to me. The only thing I would recommend is to put your chosen src image first in srcset, because older WebKit with partial x-only srcset implementation will pick the first item when it doesn't understand the descriptors.

Image width 100% - scaleMode flex mobile

I have a view in my flex mobile application, in which I have a lot of pictures which should shown in VGroup. The pictures are 851x315, they should have width="100%". About and under the picture are white areas. I want put the next picture direct under the picture without any white areas.
Here a screenshot (I have scrolled on the screen, so that's better to see):
Have you tried setting the VGroup gap and padding to zero.
<s:VGroup gap="0" paddingTop="0" paddingBottom="0" paddingRight="0" paddingLeft="0">
...
</s:VGroup>

Responsive Portfolio Gallery Image Resizing

I am making a responsive portfolio website using WordPress. I have a small issue that is breaking the layout. All images are meant to be 300px wide by 200px high.
I have also used the WordPress API to crop images if the user uploads images that are larger than the above mentioned dimensions
add_image_size( "portfolio", 300, 200, true );
What this does for me is that it inserts the width="300" and height="200" attributes to the images automatically (but the original dimensions of the image stay the same they are just being resized) This works well except when i try to resize my browser window..
Here is a senario: The client uploads an image with dimensions 300px wide and 210px high.. initially it is being resized and shown hence the layout is perfect but when i resize the browser the images gets resized as well but with respect to its "original dimensions".. hence the image with the original height of 210px is larger that the rest of the images.. and as i am floating all the images to form a 3 column layout the difference in height breaks the layout (shifting the column below this large image to the right and leaving an empty column below itself.)
How do i fix this issue? I thought of using timthumb to resize all images before they are display.. hence changing the original dimensions of the image on the fly but i think this is not an efficient way? Any other solution to this problem ? Also i dont want to using anything like jQuery Masonry as i have a specific layout to maintain.
Thanks
You can use the max-height rule from css to limit the height of all images equally.
eg:
.gallery img{
max-height: (some height);
}
Use % or em for the height, pixels might not work as well in a responsive design.

Image resizing - without css or js...?

Can anyone tell me how this image is resizing? If you remove the bg from the page with firebug you will have a clear vision of the image.
http://canvas.is/images/logo_solid.png
I notice that when the page is scaled the width and height attributes apply and start to scale the image. I have looked through the page and there is no css indicating a percentage width or height and no js in sight.
How is this working?
Thanks
I would tentatively say this is a browser built-in feature as the url ends with image extension, browser know it's not html page, so it would render it in a different way.
Well, I still do not think there is something magical out there, in a normal html page, if you set a fixed width to an image, browser will resize its height automatically. It's more like this scenario:
<div class="image-wrapper">
<img width="100%" src="..."/>
</div>
image would be resized per its original ratio with the width change of image-wrapper

CSS image overlay for image hyperlinks

I have a menu made up of images and on a:hover I want to add a background image rather than simply doing image replacements (all in CSS, no JavaScript).
However, if I simply change the background image, while transparency and horizontal alignment are fine, it's just at the wrong vertical placement. No matter what I try the background image goes to the very bottom of the image and you see about a text height of background image below the main menu image.
Any ideas on how to fix this?
In it's simplest form it can be repeated as follows:
<html>
<head>
<style>a:hover{background:url('over.png');}</style>
</head>
<body>
<img src="item.png" style="border:0; " />
</body>
</html>
item.png is showing about 10 pixels of the top of its image at the bottom of over.png
Thanks.
Adding background-position: x y; still only shows the over.png at the bottom of the image and crops it to the height of one character.
Below shows the two images and what comes out on the right
It'd be easier to debug if you gave us a screenshot and some code. But it sounds like you might just need to position the background image within the element using background-position. You can use pixels, percentages or just top,bottom,left,right to place a background image wherever you want it within an element. http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_background-position.asp. You might also want to look into image sprites for rollover effects. You would place the original and rollover images onto one file and simple change the background-position on hover.

Resources