81–90 of 115 posts
I'd pay you $24 a year (what i currently give to flikr) if you can compress my large jpg images into something smaller (currently it seems to be maxed at 900k) another one of my favorite features of Flikr is the ability to view exif data. Love the project!
Having to resize images before the upload is a deal breaker.
I'd pay you $24 a year (what i currently give to flikr) if you can compress my large jpg images into something smaller (currently it seems to be maxed at 900k) another one of my favorite features of Flikr is the ability to view exif data. Love the project!
here, you will have to accept the java plugin but this you can drag a whole bunch of 3.3Mg images, it will compress all on the fly and serve them back to you. http://www.documentary-art.net/uploads/compress-pics.php
I hope there is a NaCl version :)
I am currently studying your code. Thanks for making it available.
I didn't realize submission text would be eaten for external links, so here it is: I had an itch to scratch around making it easy to share sets of images with other designers and thought that I could use the new drag and drop file support to solve it. DropMocks was the result after a quick weekend of hacking. It's built on a simple Python App Engine backend, and the uploader relies on the PushState, File, and FileRea…
Small feature request: link to particular image with #
I'd pay you $24 a year (what i currently give to flikr) if you can compress my large jpg images into something smaller (currently it seems to be maxed at 900k) another one of my favorite features of Flikr is the ability to view exif data. Love the project!
Why are you browser sniffing when you can easily do feature detection for the HTML5 File API (`"FileReader" in self`) and Drag and Drop API (`"ondrag" in document`)? The only time browser sniffing is ever appropriate is when you excluding a specific browser due to a bug, and there is no unobtrusive way to do so (e.g. a console.log bug that can't be tested without calling console.log() at least once).
You're right - it would've been very easy to replace the browser detect with a feature detect once I knew what features I'd have settled on, at the time though compatibility was a distant second to proving the concept, so I lazily didn't bother. I have spent many years of my life working on a browser that is frequently hurt by agent detection, so I'm well aware of the issues with the approach I took; and while I do t…
Its listed under GPU Process in Chromium. I guess it is a Chromium problem.