On 6/20/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Re: "crop" and "zoom" - seems like
it would have very undesirable
"suprise" consequences if the original file was replaced (and changed
dimensions - for example if it itself was cropped).
Sharpness could be good though. See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Low_sharpness
for a striking example.
From that discussion, the issue seems to be the file
size of the
generated thumbnail: smaller file size (lower quality JPEG
compression) produces fuzzier images.
This is closely related to the basic divide that exists:
Camp A: Thumbnails exist only to be clicked on, to show the real image
related to the page
Camp B: Thumbnails are a fundamental part of the layout of the page,
and should be made as big and pretty as necessary to achieve a
pleasing and effective page design.
Those in camp A tend to believe that thumbnails should have a small
file size (15kb maximum), should not have a size imposed on them
(respect users' preferences), and should probably be all laid out in a
vertical column.
Those in camp B tend to believe that thumbnails should have larger
file sizes (30-50kb), should be resized as necessary, and should
definitely not be laid in a vertical column.
Camp B here.
Steve