Archive: 16 posts

---

About 4 hours of work in CS3 and this is the Final Result, What do you think? http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2877140994_239452e3ff_b.jpg Edit: revised edition up http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3133/2879972976_4d1b43e7a5_b.jpg

2008-09-21 23:24:00 Author: redstar1993 Posts: 190

---

I think it's fantastic. Very nice work.

2008-09-21 23:29:00 Author: supersickie Posts: 1366

---

I think it's fantastic. Very nice work. thanks very much, I hope this will be one of the 20 chosen to be on the official site

2008-09-21 23:34:00 Author: redstar1993 Posts: 190

---

Ah, very nice. Great work. The only thing I might change would to shadow or border the grid paper so that it's more defined that it's a layer above, and lower the level of glare along the top of the pop-it paper. Although actually, the resizing doesn't work like you think it does. It actually waits until you have loaded the entire image, then shrinks it so it doesn't blow the browser super-wide, but if you click on the banner above it, it instantly pops up the already-loaded full image in another window/tab. So unfortunately, it still does apply. (Even if last I checked, almost no topics actually have the warning. Maybe just the whole forum artwork section needs that warning as a prerequisite.)

2008-09-21 23:38:00 Author: Mark D. Stroyer Posts: 632

---

Ah, very nice. Great work. The only thing I might change would to shadow or border the grid paper so that it's more defined that it's a layer above, and lower the level of glare along the top of the pop-it paper. Although actually, the resizing doesn't work like you think it does. It actually waits until you have loaded the entire image, then shrinks it so it doesn't blow the browser super-wide, but if you click on the banner above it, it instantly pops up the already-loaded full image in another window/tab. So unfortunately, it still does apply. (Even if last I checked, almost no topics actually have the warning. Maybe just the whole forum artwork section needs that warning as a prerequisite.) I get where you're coming from there but I'm too tired to change it now. You're right about the warning too, but most people have broadband these days anyway I guess.

2008-09-21 23:43:00 Author: redstar1993 Posts: 190

---

Nice job

2008-09-21 23:45:00 Author: Unknown User

---

I get where you're coming from there but I'm too tired to change it now. Sure, just giving feedback. I always just call it as I see it. Whether or not that actually has an effect is a different matter, but I try to, at least, say more than just liking it, but point out things that could do with some improvement. (Brutal honesty is one of my traits.)

2008-09-21 23:47:00 Author: Mark D. Stroyer Posts: 632

---

Although actually, the resizing doesn't work like you think it does. It actually waits until you have loaded the entire image, then shrinks it so it doesn't blow the browser super-wide, but if you click on the banner above it, it instantly pops up the already-loaded full image in another window/tab. So unfortunately, it still does apply. Actually, you are incorrect. Flickr, Photobucket, imageshack, and others automatically resize large images upon reloading. If you click the bar, you'll see that the source image is actually 1024x576, which is a resized version of the original 1920x1080. Regarding the wallpaper, nice job! It looks good.

2008-09-21 23:49:00 Author: ConfusedCartman Posts: 3729

---

Brutal honesty is one of my traits Sometimes it can seem harsh but more often than not a trait like that helps to improve things.

2008-09-21 23:50:00 Author: redstar1993 Posts: 190

---

Actually, you are incorrect. Flickr, Photobucket, imageshack, and others automatically resize large images upon reloading. If you click the bar, you'll see that the source image is actually 1024x576, which is a resized version of the original 1920x1080. ...Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not sure...

2008-09-21 23:58:00 Author: Mark D. Stroyer Posts: 632

---

...Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not sure... It sounded like you were talking about how the image wasn't resized by the upload site, but by this site. Were you?

2008-09-22 00:02:00 Author: ConfusedCartman Posts: 3729

---

Actually, you are incorrect. Flickr, Photobucket, imageshack, and others automatically resize large images upon reloading. If you click the bar, you'll see that the source image is actually 1024x576, which is a resized version of the original 1920x1080. Regarding the wallpaper, nice job! It looks good. Thanks!, so the resizing isn't done by the site but by flikr?

2008-09-22 00:02:00 Author: redstar1993 Posts: 190

---

Let me start from the top, eh? The upload site automatically, upon uploading it, reduced it from its full 1920x1080 to 1024x576. Now, in order to fit within the forum pane, that was further shrunk here to roughly half that, with a banner above it denoting it's no longer full-size, and that you can click on the banner to view the full image. That was done by the site, as far as I can tell. However, beforehand it actually loaded the full, 1024x576 image, and once fully loaded shrunk it and put up the banner, so the full image was loaded, simply made smaller. Clicking the image reveals the full-size image. So the 56K warning does apply, because the full image was still loaded. That's what I was trying to say. (Sorry if it still doesn't work. There's a certain disconnect between my brain and whatever I'm trying to communicate with, particularly my mouth but often my fingers as well.) Correct me where I'm wrong, please.

2008-09-22 01:35:00 Author: Mark D. Stroyer Posts: 632

---

Thanks!, so the resizing isn't done by the site but by flikr? Yep, pretty much. Let me start from the top, eh? The upload site automatically, upon uploading it, reduced it from its full 1920x1080 to 1024x576. Now, in order to fit within the forum pane, that was further shrunk here to roughly half that, with a banner above it denoting it's no longer full-size, and that you can click on the banner to view the full image. That was done by the site, as far as I can tell. However, beforehand it actually loaded the full, 1024x576 image, and once fully loaded shrunk it and put up the banner, so the full image was loaded, simply made smaller. Clicking the image reveals the full-size image. So the 56K warning does apply, because the full image was still loaded. That's what I was trying to say. (Sorry if it still doesn't work. There's a certain disconnect between my brain and whatever I'm trying to communicate with, particularly my mouth but often my fingers as well.) Correct me where I'm wrong, please. Oh, well then I misunderstood you. Thanks for clearing it up.

2008-09-22 03:20:00 Author: ConfusedCartman Posts: 3729

---

Superb pic! A really stylish slice of design.

2008-09-22 15:28:00 Author: mrbobbyboy Posts: 304

---

OP updated with revised edition.

2008-09-22 19:31:00 Author: redstar1993 Posts: 190

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.