Skip to main content

View Post [edit]

Poster: xtifr Date: May 25, 2006 9:20am
Forum: etree Subject: speaking of images, some technical questions

I would like to learn more about providing thumbnail images for specific items (i.e. specific shows). The FAQ merely says that "the image you upload must be named identifier.jpg". However, a recent post from Jonathan Aizen says, "describe it in the metadata editor as having the format 'Item Image'". However, one of my own uploads is showing a thumbnail image, despite the fact that I've met neither of these criteria: http://www.archive.org/details/rad1984-03-03.shnf That's nice. What's not nice is that it is trying to display the back cover image, rather than the front (presumably because "back" comes before "front" alphabetically), and it's trying to cram a large, high-resolution image into a tiny thumbnail slot, which means the image takes a long time to download, but doesn't look very good. So I have some questions.... 1. How can I control which image is used? If I rename the front cover image to "rad1984-03-03.shnf.jpg", it will no longer be obvious that it's the front cover. Ditto if I give it a metadata label of "Item Image". But, despite that flaw (and the fact that it would still take too long for the image to load), would either of those methods actually work? And if the metadata approach would work, could I use a label like "Item Image (front cover)" to make things a little more clear, or does it have to be exactly "Item Image"? 2. Is it possible that the Archive could learn to prefer images with "front" in their name, if other rules (like metadata labels and identifier.jpg) have failed? This seems like a bit of an ugly solution, but I happen to know that there are a large number of shows with both front and back cover images, and this would help with all of them. 3. If I want to provide a thumbnail (and I think I probably do), what size should it be? And if I make one that's a little too small, will it be stretched to fit, or used as-is? I realize that some of these questions may involve asking engineers or digging through PHP code, but I'm not in a rush for answers.
This post was modified by xtifr on 2006-05-25 16:20:32

Reply [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: May 25, 2006 5:03pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: speaking of images, some technical questions

Hi there,

I think there is a bit of confusion here. You need to give your image the format called "Item Image", not give it that title. You can still call it whatever you want (both in the file name, and in the title field), but just select "Item Image" from the drop down for the format field. Does that make sense? If not, go to the metadata editor page for your item, go to your image in the list of files, and you'll see that currently "JPEG" is selected. Just change that to "Item Image"...

As for size restrictions - 160px wide.

Jon

Reply [edit]

Poster: xtifr Date: May 25, 2006 6:59pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: speaking of images, some technical questions

Yes, I figured out that "item image" was a format after I posted. In fact, someone (presumably a staff member) tried that with my show, making the front cover image into the Item Image. And that clued me in.

Unfortunately, the change didn't seem to work. The front cover is listed in the "Individual Files" area as the Item Image, but the back cover is still being displayed at the top of the page. So something's not working right. Apparently.

Thanks for the size info. I'm going to go ahead and try uploading thumbnails for a couple of my other shows. I'll name the thumbnails "archive_image.jpg" so they'll sort first, alphabetically, AND I'll mark them as "item image", which should cover all the bases. But I'll leave the show above alone for at least a few more days, in case any of the staff want to look at it or experiment with it.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Jonathan Aizen Date: May 25, 2006 9:27pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: speaking of images, some technical questions

Apparently there is a bug ;) Thanks. I'll investiage and try to make it give priority for files tagged with "Item Image" - by that token, only one file should have that format, or else you won't know which one the system will choose.

Will try to look at it in the coming days.

Jon

Reply [edit]

Poster: xtifr Date: May 26, 2006 7:25am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: speaking of images, some technical questions

Thanks. I realize this isn't a high-priority issue (to say the least), but I did some more experimentation with another show, and you may be interested in the results. This was a show that didn't already have any image files to confuse matters. Just a PDF. http://www.archive.org/details/rad1985-11-08.flac16 First, I extracted an image from the PDF, shrunk it down to 160x160, named it "archive_image.jpg", uploaded it, and then tagged it as "Item Image". It wasn't displayed at all; the standard (default) Archive logo was shown instead. Then I decided to try the FAQ's advice, and renamed the image to "item-identifier.jpg" (i.e. "rad1985-11-08.flac16.jpg"), and, once again, tagged it as "Item Image," but that didn't help either. So then I tried tagging it as a JPEG, and then it showed up! Then I renamed it back to "archive_image.jpg", and left it tagged as JPEG, and it still showed up. edit: at each stage of the above testing, I had to (and did) wait for the metadata changes to be reflected in the show detail page. I checked the "Individual Files" section to make sure that the image file was listed, and was tagged the way I expected, before looking to see if the image was being displayed. So there we have it. At the moment, the "Item Image" tag is not working correctly. And the advice in the FAQ is nearly, but not quite correct. The uploaded image does not have to be named "identifier.jpg", but it does have to sort, alphabetically, first before any other image files that may be in the same directory. As an aside, though, I have to say that I'm really pleased with the fact that I can check items in and out now, in order to try things like this. There are some parts of the LMA/Archive merger that have left me not-so-thrilled, but this one was well worth the price of admission! :) Note to the peanut gallery: this show, unlike the previous one, is on my personal must-have list. A true classic of New Orleans Rock'n'Roll.
This post was modified by xtifr on 2006-05-26 14:25:57