New Screenshots Section

[bapenguin]

I just put the finishing touches on our new Screenshots Section (http://www.evilavatar.com/index.php?page=screenshots). This front end into our *award winning screenshot viewer allows for easier and faster access to our entire archive of screenshots. You can also easily see the last 5 additions to the screenshots section.

More features are on the way, and your feedback is appreciated.


* Awarded by the Evil Avatar community for best screenshot viewer on this site.

[Kamalot]

Nice work Bap! Thanks! :D

[violentp]

I voted for it you know.

[NotJeff]

* Awarded by the Evil Avatar community for best screenshot viewer on this site.

Rigged. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

[Goronmon]

I voted for it you know.I sure as hell didn't.

[NoName]

I may be going crazy, but after looking at some screenshots, I think smaller ones are scaled UP to fit the entire broswer screen. For example, some of the PS3 hardware pics (like the controller) which aren't so big.

When the smaller pics take up the full browser window they look horrible. I click on it for the "full resolution" and they get smaller and not pixilated.

Can you have the screen shot system only scale images down to fit and not up?

Edit: Definitely not going crazy, 360 hardware section doing the same thing. Oh, and take this as constructive criticism. The new screen shot organization is hot.

[bapenguin]

I may be going crazy, but after looking at some screenshots, I think smaller ones are scaled UP to fit the entire broswer screen. For example, some of the PS3 hardware pics (like the controller) which aren't so big.

When the smaller pics take up the full browser window they look horrible. I click on it for the "full resolution" and they get smaller and not pixilated.

Can you have the screen shot system only scale images down to fit and not up?

Edit: Definitely not going crazy, 360 hardware section doing the same thing. Oh, and take this as constructive criticism. The new screen shot organization is hot.

No, it definitley does. It's a browser based thing, actually it's a CSS 2.0 thing. I'm not sure how you define the style to only scale down and not up. I suppose I could just remove it all together, but you can access the original image just by clicking on it.

Maybe I can find an alternate method of scaling.

[NoName]

No, it definitley does. It's a browser based thing, actually it's a CSS 2.0 thing. I'm not sure how you define the style to only scale down and not up. I suppose I could just remove it all together, but you can access the original image just by clicking on it.

Maybe I can find an alternate method of scaling.
Interesting, so you don't have access to the browser's x and y size? It seems to scale along the x axis so it always takes up the full left/right of the screen.

I'd say why not just do a conditional scale on the x pixel size of the image compared to the browser, but then again I haven't coded much in css/javascript so I'm not sure what's available.

[bapenguin]

Interesting, so you don't have access to the browser's x and y size? It seems to scale along the x axis so it always takes up the full left/right of the screen.

I'd say why not just do a conditional scale on the x pixel size of the image compared to the browser, but then again I haven't coded much in css/javascript so I'm not sure what's available.

I have access to the browser's size, but not the image. At least, not the image with minimal overhead. If anyone can help though, it would be greatly appreciated. :)

Right now it's just a simple CSS style:.scale
{
width: 95%;
z-index:0
}

It'll always scale the image to 95% of the browsers width using this.

[CrashCart]

I forget if this is even valid CSS, but can't you just use max-width: 95%;?

Anything bigger should be squashed into the width you've allocated (while retaining its ratio, provided you don't specify height), while anything smaller is unaffected?

At least, I think that's how it should work. If not, maybe try a combination of width and max-width.

[Spigot]

You need to have a screenshot of the new screenshot section in the post :)

[Sazime]

Sweet, seems to work great for me! I like it.

Wasn't there something like this on the site before the crash of 2005?

[bapenguin]

I forget if this is even valid or not, but can't you just use max-width: 95%;
? Anything bigger gets squashed into the size you've allocated, anything smaller is unaffected?

Doesn't seem like it works. I tried it by itself and with the width too. By itself it just displays at native size, with scaling it doesn't seem to affect it.

[PathMaster]

Thanks for the hard work, looks great. I cant wait for more SS to fill the section.

[fitbabits]

Sweet gloopers! Papa likey - great work, bap.

[CrashCart]

Doesn't seem like it works. I tried it by itself and with the width too. By itself it just displays at native size, with scaling it doesn't seem to affect it.
Strange, it seemed to work for me in my quick test here. I just used a random wide image and a random small image, though. The small image didn't get stretched with max-width, but the wide image did. I'll try borrowing some of your SS's and see if I can't get the same results..

[saulob]

great works bap. congrats. nice one.

[CrashCart]

<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.scale {
max-width: 95%;
z-index: 0;
}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div width="100%" style="background-color: #000000;">
<img class="scale" src="http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/360/360hddvd.jpg" />
<br>
<img class="scale" src="http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/Aion/a_aion0005.jpg" />
</div>
</body>
</html>

This seemed to work for me, bap. If you're changing the stylesheet, you may have to clear your cache for it to reload the style change. I should probably try testing it in IE or somewhere a little less lenient than Firefox or something, I suppose.

In any event, great work on the section so far.

Edit: Bah. Who uses IE6 anyway? So it doesn't work there. I'll keep messing with it a bit. It's a nice distraction from other things here at work. :D

[AniAko]

Doesn't seem like it works. I tried it by itself and with the width too. By itself it just displays at native size, with scaling it doesn't seem to affect it.

max-width: 95%

I tried it and it works in mozilla/netscape browsers. That is the correct way of doing it. IE6 is not CSS 2.0 compliant, if that's your test bed.

[moron]

Bad Pengiun (and fitabits): please read your PM!

Cheers

[fitbabits]

Bad Pengiun (and fitabits): please read your PM!

Cheers
I've alerted bapenguin.

In other news, it's fitbabits.

[moron]

Gotta admit, "fitabits" is easier to say.

=)

Cheers

[AniAko]

I've alerted bapenguin.

In other news, it's fitbabits.

Oh christ not again. I think you should change your name to

fitty: the red formally mistaken as "fit-A-BITS"

[CptTripps]

I've alerted bapenguin.

In other news, it's fitbabits.

Well I'll be!! It is fitbabits, first time I ever noticed.

Anyway, nice work bap, screenies are always good.

[Dr.Finger]

Bad Pengiun (and fitabits): please read your PM!

CheersMADHIRO! Check your PMs!

[Sazime]

MADHIRO! Check your PMs!
God damn it, is he doing that again?

So how do screenshots for websites like this work? Do you need special permission to grab screens and post them? Or can you be all willy-nilly and put up anything you can find on the web?

[bapenguin]

<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.scale {
max-width: 95%;
z-index: 0;
}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div width="100%" style="background-color: #000000;">
<img class="scale" src="http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/360/360hddvd.jpg" />
<br>
<img class="scale" src="http://www.evilavatar.com/images/previews/Aion/a_aion0005.jpg" />
</div>
</body>
</html>

This seemed to work for me, bap. If you're changing the stylesheet, you may have to clear your cache for it to reload the style change. I should probably try testing it in IE or somewhere a little less lenient than Firefox or something, I suppose.

In any event, great work on the section so far.

Edit: Bah. Who uses IE6 anyway? So it doesn't work there. I'll keep messing with it a bit. It's a nice distraction from other things here at work. :D


Appreciate the help. It seems to work now. Must have definitley been a browser cache issue. IE6? Bah...50% of our users use Firefox, so that's my primary test bed.

[Rone]

I like it. And for some reason, I see "" above the words "Latest Additions".

[Sandman]

Any chance we can get a Sports forum and a World of Warcraft forum?

[NoName]

Appreciate the help. It seems to work now. Must have definitley been a browser cache issue. IE6? Bah...50% of our users use Firefox, so that's my primary test bed.
Ahhh, so much better now. Keep up the amazing work Bap!

[Jukey]

Looks fine in IE7 btw

[fitbabits]

Any chance we can get a Sports forum and a World of Warcraft forum?
There will be at least one additional forum added in the coming weeks, but I can't tell you what it will be. ;)

[CptTripps]

Check your code man, netscape 4.8 no likey!!!

[Spigot]

There will be at least one additional forum added in the coming weeks, but I can't tell you what it will be. ;)
The Really, Really, Really, REALLY Off-Topic forum is finally coming! Woohoo!

Or it could be the dreaded Pancake v. Waffles forum, so we can finally have a place that people who participate in that idiotic discussion can sequester themselves and leave the rest of us alone.

[phantomhitman]

this is bullshit, I cannot view it on my ti-83 calcumalat0rz!

[Sazime]

this is bullshit, I cannot view it on my ti-83 calcumalat0rz!
Ah, shitzorrz.

Any chance of the World of Conflict screenies being added there?