Show HN: Turn raw HTML into production-ready images for free
51–60 of 87 posts
Re: Show HN: Turn raw HTML into production-ready images for free
#52Alternatively, open devtools, press ctrl+shift+p (or cmd+shift+p on a mac) to open the command palette, search for 'screenshot' and choose 'Capture full size screenshot' to do the same thing on your browser. There's 'area screenshot' for selecting an area, 'screenshot' for the viewport', and even 'node screenshot' for capturing the selected DOM node.
Re: Show HN: Turn raw HTML into production-ready images for free
#53Congrats on launching, beautiful design. I'm not sure of what "production ready" is supposed to mean here, but the demo image is not optimized, `optipng` command decreases its size by 53.21%.
Re: Show HN: Turn raw HTML into production-ready images for free
#54I thought this was satire. Usually you want to go from image to HTML, not the other way around. I suppose it does have its uses, though.
Re: Show HN: Turn raw HTML into production-ready images for free
#55Re: Show HN: Turn raw HTML into production-ready images for free
#56Re: Show HN: Turn raw HTML into production-ready images for free
#57Re: Show HN: Turn raw HTML into production-ready images for free
#58Alternatively, open devtools, press ctrl+shift+p (or cmd+shift+p on a mac) to open the command palette, search for 'screenshot' and choose 'Capture full size screenshot' to do the same thing on your browser. There's 'area screenshot' for selecting an area, 'screenshot' for the viewport', and even 'node screenshot' for capturing the selected DOM node.
Yeah and you can also take a picture with your phone. Or draw with pencil and paper.
Re: Show HN: Turn raw HTML into production-ready images for free
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. JPG, I could live with but please not webp.
Why? I assume the intention is to show these images on a webpage somewhere. WebP is well-supported by browsers and can store lossless images at better compression ratios than PNG, so why not use it? I don't think using a lossy format like JPEG makes much sense. JPEG is a fine format for photos, but for HTML content rendered as an image I assume most people would want a lossless format so you don't get artifacts.