I'd like to have a way to specify "show original image" (ie not the resized version) in the url. Something like post #518740.
This would make it possible to link the big image without having to sacrifice the rest of the page.
Updated by Dr Fine Rolo
Posted under General
I'd like to have a way to specify "show original image" (ie not the resized version) in the url. Something like post #518740.
This would make it possible to link the big image without having to sacrifice the rest of the page.
Updated by Dr Fine Rolo
That wouldn't be server side, no more than "View full version" is.
Re: the original request, I'm not convinced it's a good idea. This way the one linking decides what version to show, and not the viewer. Which is wrong; if someone wants to see the full version, they can just click to do so.
葉月 said:
This way the one linking decides what version to show, and not the viewer.
The viewer could still adjust the image as it is now. What the OP is asking for is a way to send an argument to /post/ which influences the default view; with a "?size=original", the original image would be forced to load, regardless of the user's preferences as to whether sample images should be shown or not. In coordination with Fencedude's request for a "View Sample" link, it would be unproblematic, imo.
0xCCBA696 said:
In coordination with Fencedude's request for a "View Sample" link, it would be unproblematic, imo.
That's assuming the 30k x 40k buffer that's been created didn't use all your free RAM and send you into swap already, and that you can reliably tell the browser to stop loading what it already started fetching, which I have no idea if is possible. And anyway, it's the forcing part that bothers me. I have my settings this way for a reason, why would someone *else* get to decide what I get to see?
Again, I don't see the benefit and I see problems.
The benefit is that sometimes I want give somebody a link that shows the bigger picture, and right now I can't do that without sacrificing the rest of the page. Some things are better at smaller sizes, and some aren't (images that are short but very wide, for example).
I can understand wanting control over how danbooru looks for you, but I would like control over how things look when I link them. It's like linking youtubes with &fmt=18 on the end; I'm saving people a click. If they don't prefer it that way they can always fix it when they get there, edit the link beforehand, avoid those links altogether, etc.
葉月 said:
That's assuming the 30k x 40k buffer that's been created didn't use all your free RAM and send you into swap already, and that you can reliably tell the browser to stop loading what it already started fetching, which I have no idea if is possible. And anyway, it's the forcing part that bothers me. I have my settings this way for a reason, why would someone *else* get to decide what I get to see?Again, I don't see the benefit and I see problems.
Uhh...if we can have a "view original" link that will stop loading the sample and load the original, why in the world would we not be able to have the reverse?
alfred said:
I can understand wanting control over how danbooru looks for you, but I would like control over how things look when I link them. It's like linking youtubes with &fmt=18 on the end; I'm saving people a click. If they don't prefer it that way they can always fix it when they get there, edit the link beforehand, avoid those links altogether, etc.
But then I have carefully to parse each danbooru URL, and moreover, I need to *know* about such function. Again, I don't think you should be the one to decide how I see things on my screen. It's the same mistake as allowing links to be specified to open in a new window in HTML. If I wanted to do it, I can middle-click just fine, thank you very much.
Fencedude said:
Uhh...if we can have a "view original" link that will stop loading the sample and load the original, why in the world would we not be able to have the reverse?
Are you sure it *stops* loading the sample? Hiding it doesn't necessarily imply the browser won't fetch it anymore and that it frees all the buffers it allocated. And I'd rather it didn't keep 10k x 10k buffers around when I didn't ask it to.
*sigh*
I really don't give a damn, I just want access to the sample, because "resize image" is not particularly useful much of the time, and trying to view a 5000x3000 image can be difficult sometimes, so I'd like access to the sample.
Edit: And if you don't like it...you don't have to use it!
I'm not saying you can't have it. What I'm against is saying "and you can always click »Show sample«, so linking directly to the original size is not a problem". The "Show sample" functionality itself is fine and in fact I wished to have it several times when I accidentally clicked "Show original" when I didn't mean to.
Log said:
Go Here and check "show image samples."
I think the issue more-so towards being able to do this on-the-fly.
One scenario where this is applicable (and what I think others were getting at in this thread, too) is, say, when you want to link am image to a friend. But, the resolution could absurdly high and could take a while to load for the other person, not to mention viewing can be problematic if they don't know about the 'Resize image' link; it'd just be much more convenient to be able to link to a thumbnail-ish image instead. And then, if they want, they can view the full image later.
But that's just one little scenario, I really just think this is a matter of convenience. I know I would find it useful if we could link thumbnails (possibly by editing the URL).