So, I'm not quite sure where to put this since there isn't an "Off-Topic" section.

I've been lurking here for, I dunno, 2 months or so, and have seen repeatedly, someone who posted pixel art that was magnified, and immediately got told not to do that. Yet it seems the people who post a decent sum of art, say 10 or 15 decent images, are left out of the

I can understand the ramifications of scaling it by strange integers or ratios, that makes sense.

My actual question is why does everyone purport the zoom feature to be so great? So far, I have only noticed that it blurs the image, causing it to look bad at scaled resolutions. This is in contrast to being able to scale it up myself without a scaling algorithm in play, like Nearest Neighbor, or BiCubic interpolation.

So why the hatred for scaled pixel art if scaled correctly?

Just wanting friendly discussion, not trying to seem on the offensive here. Just find it mildly interesting.

Not everybody sees the blurry effect in images when scaled through the zoom feature (for example, in my PC I see images blurry, but that doesn't happen when I use a PC in my college.

What I would do is post images in 1x, and then a link to a magnified image (Nearest Neighbour algorithm) for those who see them blurry.

Edit: You replied faster than me xD!

Edited by AtskaHeart - 14 May 2013 at 4:20pm

Hey, I noticed that I get the blury effect on pixeljoint but not on pixelation. Can't we ask for permission for their zoom script? It seems to support more browsers. I have firefox on win8 by the way (without any relevant addons/extentions).

Edit: win7, not win8!


Edited by king_bobston - 28 May 2013 at 4:58am

Ah I just checked, PJ gallery and Pixelation both use the same CSS "hints" for browsers to behave properly :
img.zoom {
  image-rendering: optimizeSpeed;             /* Legal fallback                 */
  image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges;          /* Firefox                        */
  image-rendering: -o-crisp-edges;            /* Opera                          */
  image-rendering: -webkit-optimize-contrast; /* Chrome (and eventually Safari) */
  image-rendering: optimize-contrast;         /* CSS3 Proposed                  */
  -ms-interpolation-mode: nearest-neighbor;   /* IE8+                           */
}
But PJ forum doesn't have it...

I've sent Sedge a note with yrizoud's post and see why the forum does not have that code included.

We just added the css script yrizoud posted.
@all, refresh test and report making sure you mention what browser you use at least.

This thread needs an image for testing purposes, amirite?



W7 + Fx21.
Aaaaaand the result is ...
CRISP!!! CONGRATS!!!


Edited by Manupix - 26 May 2013 at 3:11pm

Still blurry on Chrome.

@Numberplay, fixing blurs is not possible in Chrome because the browser code can't be overridden. This is what others more code savvy have said before.

! I had never noticed !
In /pixels/includes/js/zoom.js, there's the following function :

function zoom(type,imgx,iWidthIn,iHeightIn) {
	imgd = findDOM(imgx);
	//alert(imgd.width + ", " + imgd.height);
	if (type=="+" && imgd.width >= iWidthIn) {
		imgd.width = 2*imgd.width;
		imgd.height = 2*imgd.height;
	}
	if (type=="-" && imgd.width > iWidthIn) {
		imgd.width = imgd.width/2;
		imgd.height = imgd.height/2;
	}
} 

It should be changed to something like this:

function zoom(type,imgx,iWidthIn,iHeightIn) {
	imgd = findDOM(imgx);
	var factor = imgd.width/iWidthIn;
	if (type=="+" && factor<16) {
		imgd.width = (factor+1)*iWidthIn;
		imgd.height = (factor+1)*iHeightIn;
	}
	if (type=="-" && factor>1) {
		imgd.width = (factor-1)*iWidthIn;
		imgd.height = (factor-1)*iHeightIn;
	}
} 

This code from yrizoud would make the zoom buttons on the art pages increase the artwork by factor 1 instead of x2.
Right now the steps are: 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, and with Yrizoud's script it would be 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x etc.
In the forum this already happens, in the gallery this does not.

Most definitely 1,2,3,4x. Just like Manupix I dislike the gallery zoom.. Of course this could be the right moment to make a list of fixable flaws and fix them for Sedge. Sadly only the javascripts and mark up files are easy to read, the server side code is not of course but this should be enough to also fix:

• gallery page not displaying artwork wider than 720 px correctly (or artwork zoomed in too much)
• gallery browser page is sticky, so you stay on page 3 if you left on page 3 when you give a new search, such as going to the public queue (which then looks empty)
• I would still like the forum to be intergrated in the site, so that if you click forum you stay on the front page, the top bar and all the artworks on top stay, the footer stays as well, only the news and the chatterbox get replaced by the forum. This is technically writable without too many effort and without having to download the server side code.
• The projects and features topics could be reorganized, as they are outdated. All old projects and unused features could be more hidden. If we want to modernize PJ we could start by cutting out the crap, such as the quote system.
  
• Last but not least, my favorite problem on the site: The rating system. But this requires effort from sedge. Lets rewrite a rating system that does not rely on pieces getting multiple rates so that all these 'golden oldies' can leave the HoF if newer pieces turn out to be better. This also keeps the HoF on the frontpage more fresh.
  Users at a higher level should have more weight to their ratings, not more rating bubbles (this does not make sense in any way). This possibly requires resetting all the rates.
  
• We should replace the WYSIWYG editor on PJ  (the forum one is still fine), it is outdated and does not always function well.

Also, I am interested to hear about PJ's security. I have seen so many old websites recently where hackers got access to the database. Often because of outdated modules with problems. An advantage of sedge's custom system is that there are no standard modules that a hacking bot might crawl for, on the other hand not using standard modules means we never get an update for anything.

These are all relatively easy to fix problems, and with sedges support we could probably fix at least half of them ourselves, and be clear about what we want for the rest of the required updates...

Interested?

Edited by Hapiel - 30 May 2013 at 6:58am