I am looking for an image generator for images that:
Look like cogs, wheels, progress bars, etc.
Spin.
Are small, less than 20-30 pixels. 16 might be good, i.e. 'icon size'
Are simple, just 2D no need for 3d image.
All the examples I found are large 3d ones. I want one of those little ones that I can use with things like ajax while loading up a bit of the page, transferring a file, sending a large message, etc.
The android spinning gear cog is one example.
Then I can show/hide the image as I need.
I figure a lot of people will have tackled this / know good solutions.
You can generate simple animated "loading" icons on http://www.ajaxload.info
For fancier ones, try http://preloaders.net or http://www.loadinfo.net
Fontawesome (version 3) includes a few spinning icons.
http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/#examples
Related
Recently I have heard that you can create forms like a rectangle for example with css3, but i wonder why would I ever do that, doesnt it only cost more time in comparison to images?
I can only imagine that it would be better for pageload speed.
Okay now to be clear of few things... Images and CSS are two different things.
Speaking about form, if you want a rectangle, then you can just have some tags like div tag, and style them using CSS.
CSS is way faster than loading few images. If u wanna use images for designing purpose such as creating a rectangle, then its better to use CSS to get the effect.
Gone are those days when people used to use image to style up the website. CSS are ruling now. Unless its an album thing, or slider, or background image, or profile image, etc don't use image for designing purpose.
Also, with CSS along with few tags, you can create few geometrical objects like arrows, circle, rectangle, squares, etc.
Speaking about time, being a developer, you have to look at the TIME COST from clients prospective always, than developers prospective. Things can be get done in a jiffy, and unorganized manner, but comes in huge cost.
I am building a web application which will display a large number of image thumbnails as a 3D cloud and provide the ability to click on individual images to launch a large view. I have successfully done this in CSS3D using three.js by creating a THREE.CSS3DObject for each thumbnail and then append the thumbnail as an svg:image.
It works great for upto ~1200 thumbnails and then performance starts to drop off (very low FPS and long load time). By the time you hit 2500 thumbnails it is unusable. Ideally I want to work with over 10k thumbnails.
From what I can tell I would be able to achieve the same result by creating each thumbnail as a WebGL mesh with texture. I am a beginner with three.js though, so before I put in the effort I was hoping for guidance on whether I can expect performance to be better or am I just asking too much of 3D in the browser?
As far as rendering goes, CSS3 should be relatively okay for rendering quite big amount of "sprites". But 10k would probably be too much.
WebGL would probably be a better option though. You could also take care about further optimizations, storing thumbnails in atlas texture or such...
But rendering is just one part. Event handling can be serious bottleneck if not handled carefully.
I don't know how you're handling mouse clock event and transition towards fullsize image, but attaching event listener to each of 2.5k+ objects probably isn't a good choice anyway. With pure WebGL you could use imagespace for detecting clicked object. Encoding each tile with different id/color and using that to determine what's clicked. I imagine that WebGL/CSS3D combo could use this approach as well.
To answer question, WebGL should handle 10k fine. Maybe you'll need to think about some perf optimization if your rectangles are big and they take a significant amount on the screen, but there are ways around it if that problem appears.
I use the Kupu editor in Plone3 to insert images in the website, automatic scaling images, and make a smaller thumb with a link to the original image.
This is a tutorial of how we do that:
http://www.contentmanagementsoftware.info/plone-book/kupu/insert-image-properties/index_html
Kupu creates a new scaled image (not only scaling with css, but scaling it for real), and the result is that images become a little blurry. I don't know if this issue is related to this document.
The question comes to my mind. Is there anybody who find this issue too? Is there any way to fix it?
I think the only way to achieve a great quality images is scaling them manually with photoshop or some graphic editor. But seems that Kupu doesn't allow to do that. You must swallow with its manners and upload its self-generated images.
Well, a bit too localized, but we find main error. I want to respond in case that any user will be in the same situation...
Kupu scale images to a certain width and height. And later, the css rescaled again a little bigger, making blurry images.
That is the main problem, we reduced an image, then enlarged it browser-side again. We didn't notice until now that there was css behind the kupu implementation and "overriding" (so to speak) our configuration.
Ladies/ Gentlemen
We are building a flash based product where we need to create icons for various modules. we are having challenges in look and feel of the icons- what looks really good on Adobe Illustrator/ Photoshop looks jagged on flashPlayer. A challenge we have is that the overall screen aspect ratio and hence aspect for the icons which are relatively sized can change
we were told in discussions with some adobe folks that
a) we need to build icons which are square, and in multiples of 32 pixels.
b) use a png format
As per them, this way the pixelation is reduced and diagonal lines won't appear jagged- we still have an issue on rendering in flash player
Any ideas/ guidance on how to approach this?
6 hours and no answer?
Here's the magical property you want: http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/ActionScriptLangRefV3/flash/display/Bitmap.html#smoothing
Just make that true, either via the setter, or via the constructor.
hope this question is ok on stackoverflow. I want to use a photo as the background for the homepage of a website. The photo will be take up the entire page. However i don't know what resolution i should make the photo. I was thinking 1920 x 1200px so that people with 24 inch screen don't see the 'ends' of the photo. However is that big enough? I'm worried about the site looking ok on screens larger than 24 inches.
Also anyone know how i should optimize the photo so it loads as fast as possible? Thanks.
Overall, this seems to be a question of trade-offs. The better the resolution, the slower the page load for a do-nothing page. Is it worth the slow-down to have the better resolution and avoid pixellation?
Also, I think you're asking the wrong question, since a 24-inch screen can be in multiple resolutions.
I would approach this in the following manner:
what is the largest resolution you MUST have your photo look "good" on? Then make your photo that resolution. If 24" is your target, look at what resolutions this size monitor "typically" supports and target that.
What number of colors you want? (or perhaps b&w / grayscale). If you reduce the number of colors (preferably to "web-safe" colors), you can load faster with the same resolution.
A program like Photoshop (or Gimp) will probably give you the most power in tuning these parameters.
Do you care if only a portion of the photo displays when your viewer has a smaller window?
I know this isn't a cut and dried answer, but these things seldom are (IMHO).
For a solution that will work on most modern browsers, you will need to place the image in a div with a z-index less than the rest of your page (see: Stretch and scale CSS background)
As far as creating a 1920x1200 photo that will compress to a small size, I would recommend trying a smaller size (e.g. 960x600) and see if it looks okay on your 24-inch screen. There are many programs that will let you specify file size for your compression (e.g. FastStone Resizer) so you can experiment and see what is acceptable. In general, photos with less detail and/or color-depth will compress better.
Another problem you are going to run into is aspect ratio. Even assuming that your web-site is always opened in a full screen browser and not a window, sometimes that screen is going to be 16:9 ratio and sometimes 4:3. You could try to create an photo that has a nice 4:3 ratio "sweet-spot" in the center and adjust your div using some Javascript based on the current window aspect-ratio.