I am trying to make an image resizable.
I have a specific height for this image: height: 100% (inside a container) and a width: auto; (i want the width to be adapted to the height about the natural image size).
Everything works fine when i access the page, but when i resize the window, the height is correctly resized, but the width keeps its initial value, i want it to be proportional (like when i access the page for the first time) to the height.
Is there a way to do it in CSS ? If not, what is the more optimize solution ?
Here is an illustration in code:
HTML
<div class="container">
<img alt="test" src="/img/test.png">
</div>
CSS
.container {
height: 100px;
width: 100%;
}
.container img {
height: 100%;
width: auto; //i need it to be adapted to each height about the natural image's dimensions
}
UPDATE
Here is a jsfiddle
http://jsfiddle.net/CRGj6/1/
Sometime it works sometime it doesn't...
window resize affects only the width of the element but not the height. It is kinda make sense because if you resize the height, more content is scrollable that means don't do anything to width but to increase the scrollbar length (so more content to be scrolled). Assuming that you want to preserve the aspect ratio of the image,
.wrapper .container img {
position: relative;
height: auto;
width: 100%;
}
would be the solution to this problem.
Related
I'm trying to make an image overflow it's container. I have set the image to 100% height, and it's stretching. I want instead for it to overflow its container's width (I need to then hide that overflow). It's the right most part of the image I'm interested in.
Code coming...
If you set the height of the image to 100% of its container and if nothing is specified about the width, the width should change proportionately i.e. if too wide it should overflow as required. There should be no stretching.
.container {
width: 200px;
height: 200px;
border: solid 10px red;
}
.container img {
width: auto;
height: 100%;
}
<div class="container">
<img src="https://picsum.photos/id/1016/500/300" />
</div>
So, is there something else in your CSS that is causing the stretching? e.g. are img widths set somewhere? (Hence, just in case, the width is explicitly set as auto in the snippet).
If I have multiple images with different aspect ratios, but want them all to be resized such that the widths are equal, but the height is changed so that original aspect ratio is maintained, I can do this with JS and math but is there a short css solution?
I think that's why object-fit property comes
it really helpful in your case and it usually used with Object-position
Yes, simply set the width using CSS and not set the height and the height will be adjusted for you while maintaining the aspect ratio.
img { width: 100px }
<img src=https://i.stack.imgur.com/w5PGK.jpg">
But note the if you worry that the height may turn out to be exceedingly large, you can also use max-height to limit it. But doing so may distort the image:
img { width: 100px; max-height: 160px }
<img src=https://i.stack.imgur.com/w5PGK.jpg">
One solution is just to set a max-width and max-height on the image:
img { max-width: 100px; max-height: 120px }
<img src=https://i.stack.imgur.com/w5PGK.jpg">
and the image will be contained in the box with the proper aspect ratio.
There are also techniques such as to create a viewing box of a fixed size, and set overflow: hidden to limit the display area to the size of the box, while setting a fixed width for the image:
.image-box { width: 100px; height: 100px; overflow: hidden }
.image-box img { width: 100px }
<div class="image-box">
<img src=https://i.stack.imgur.com/w5PGK.jpg">
</div>
Edit: For the sake of simplicity, I reduced my problem with overlay (see Background below) to width of a div. By doing that I however created a different and somewhat artificial problem. The accepted answer solves my real problem. The "reduced" problem is not solved there.
How can I make div with width equal to 100% of the page width? (without setting fixed min-width)
Seemingly, the solution is trivial. <div> with its 100% width should be OK by itself. That works fine unless you shrink the browser window below the page width (that's when scroll bars appear). Then the width of the <div> element is equal to the window size, not to the page size.
A note on the demonstration code: The first div simulates the page width. The divs below are my attempts to achieve an element wide across all page. If the page is big enough (more than 500px), they are rendered as expected - all over the page. But if you shrink the window (below 500px) and scroll bar appears, then the divs also shrink, although I want them to stay at 500px.
Here's the code, or check it out on jsFiddle if you prefer
/* just to see sizes of the elements */
div {
border: 1px solid red;
}
/* this simulates the width of the actual page content */
div#fixed {
width: 500px;
}
div#full1 {
width: 100%;
}
div#full2 {
width: 100%;
min-width: 100%;
}
div#full3 {
position: relative;
display: inline-block;
width: 100%;
}
/* this works fine, but uses fixed size min-width, I cannot use */
div#fullOK {
width: 100%;
min-width: 500px;
}
<div id="fixed">Width fixed to 500px</div>
The DIVs below are attempts to achieving 100% width despite scrolling. All work only if the window is wider than 500px.
<div>default</div>
<div id="full1">just width 100%</div>
<div id="full2">width and min-width 100%</div>
<div id="full3">run out of ideas</div>
<br>
<br>
<div id="fullOK">fixed min-width is the only thing that works (unusable for me though)</div>
Background: I have a page, which has an editor area that can be resized by the user. It has a modal dialog windows support, which - when invoked - shows a window and covers the rest of the page by a semi-opaque background with height and width set to 100%. It works well, unless it is viewed in window smaller than the page. Then scrolling shows part of the page not covered by the background, which looks ugly. I need to have this background spanning all over the page, not just over the visible area. Setting min-width and min-height could be done only with the help of JavaScript (due to unknown page size, as the user can resize the canvas) and I'd prefer avoiding that.
Use position: fixed for the overlay. The scrolling doesn't matter as elements that are fixed will position themselves in relation to the viewport. height: 100% and width: 100% will keep the overlay over the entire page no matter what you do.
From the MDN (emphasis mine):
fixed
Do not leave space for the element. Instead, position it at a specified position relative to the screen's viewport and don't move it when scrolled. [...]
CSS / HTML / Demo
* {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-size: 1.5em;
}
body {
background: white;
}
.cover {
position: fixed;
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
background: rgba(255, 0, 0, 0.7);
}
<div class="cover"></div>
<h1>I am overlapped!</h1>
<input type="text" value="cant touch this" />
I am rendering an image into a div. I want to avoid stretching of my image.
div {
height: 300px;
width: 300px;
}
img {
min-width: 300px;
min-height: 300px;
max-height: 300px;
}
My problem is that my image's width stretches. I want it to have the regular width even though parts of the image will be missing.
div {
height: 300px;
width: 300px;
overflow: hidden;
}
img {
height: 300px
max-width: none;
min-width: 300px;
}
You can achieve this with simply adding object-fit: cover;. An example might be like -
img {
height: 300px
width: 100%;
object-fit: cover;
}
I would forget setting the min-height and the max-height. Just set the height to be 300 pixels and put an overflow hidden on the div tag. That way no matter what the image size it will always stay in proportion and never go outside the boundaries of your div tag.
div { height: 300px; width: 300px; overflow: hidden; }
img { height: 300px; }
Put the image as the div background if you want to avoid stretching the easiest way (yet maintain the original width).
To make it more flexible as just using 300px use:
img {
width: 100%;
object-fit: cover;
}
Height is automatically adjusted
just specify max-width 100% and height :auto
Use max-width instead of min-width, and just set height to 300px (or only use max-height).
You can use overflow:hidden to hide any portion of the image outside of the width of the div.
div {
height: 300px;
width: 300px;
overflow: hidden;
}
img {
/*min-width: 300px;*/
height: 300px;
}
==>If you are gonna have fixed height and don't want width stretched
div {
height: 300px;
width: 300px;
overflow: hidden;
}
img {
height: 300px
}
==>If you are gonna have fixed width and don't want height stretched
div {
height: 300px;
width: 300px;
overflow: hidden;
}
img {
width: 300px
}
After giving the image a fixed height and width, I added object-fit as below:
img {
width: 300px;
height: 300px;
object-fit: contain;
}
To avoid the image from resizing use:
object-fit: none;
More about object-fit
The CSS object-fit property is used to specify how an or
should be resized to fit its container.
This property tells the content to fill the container in a variety of
ways; such as "preserve that aspect ratio" or "stretch up and take up
as much space as possible".
Object-fit Values
fill: this is default. The image is resized to fill the given
dimension. If necessary, the image will be stretched or squished to
fit.
contain: the image keeps its aspect ratio, but is resized to fit within the given dimension
cover: the image keeps its aspect ratio and fills the given dimension. The image will be clipped to fit
none: the image is not resized scale-down - the image is scaled down to the smallest version of none or contain.
More info and examples
I'm adding this to expand on the answers given since some of the answers given like adding width:100% height:auto" etc., will still technically stretch Images and/or make them blurry at times. Let me explain.
I work on a lot of eCommerce websites adding products etc and image stretching/blurring is always a problem. Most times, an image scaling down isn't that much of a issue, so the answers given as far as width:100%; height: auto; etc., work just fine. But there are problems when scaling up if the image's container width is larger than the image's native/normal width.
So for example, if you have an image whose width is 100px, and a div container whose width is 200px, if you add a width:100% and height: auto; to your image randomly, this won't technically "stretch" an image, but it will make it look blurry because you are stretching your image past its normal width.
To fix this, one thing i normally do is something like this, assuming on the desktop, that you have an image that you want to show at its 100% native width with no scaling/stretching/blurring whatsoever, I do something like:
img{
display:block;
margin:0px auto;
width: initial;
height: auto;
}
which keeps my images at their native width with no scaling whatsoever. But then, when an image is going to be seen on a smaller device, I add the same rule block into a media query and do something like:
#media all and (max-width: 1200px){
img{
width:100%;
height:auto;
}
}
What this is effectively saying is "Hey Image, make my image responsive from point A to point B(mobile devices), but once you go from point B to point C (small laptops to desktops where the image fits normally and doesn't need to stretch), make the width equal to its default native width".
Hope this helps. Happy coding everyone.
I am trying to set the width of the .full_height_div element using pure css, based on its height. It has to be width-relative-to-height, and not height-relative-to-width. The reason for this is that the parent container (.set_rectangle_height) is already a div with height relative to the page width. Obviously, as the page is resized the divs on the page will resize, so i cannot set a fixed width in px for the .full_height_div child.
So .rectangle and .set_rectangle_height make up the parent container which has a width as a percentage of the page and a height relative to this width. See here for an explanation for this method.
But the problem is that then I want to place a div inside the parent with height: 100% and width relative to this height. The aim is then that I will be able to alter the browser window size and everything will keep its aspect ratio.
here is my failed attempt:
.rectangle
{
position: relative;
width: 30%;/*the outermost div is always a % of the page
width, even while resizing*/
display:inline-block;
background-color: green;
}
.set_rectangle_height
{
padding-bottom: 30%;/*this sets the height of the outermost div
to a ratio of 1:3*/
position: relative;
float: left;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
}
.full_height_div/*this is the div that i want to have a width relative
to its height*/
{
height: 100%;
width: 20px;/*i will delete this once .square_set_width is working*/
position: absolute;
background-color: red;
}
.square_set_width
{
display: inline-block;
padding-left: 100%; /*i want to use something like this line to set
the width of this div to be equal to .full_height_div's height - ie a 1:1 aspect
ratio, but padding-left does not work :( */
position: relative;
height: 100%;
background-color: blue;
}
<div class='rectangle'>
<div class='set_rectangle_height'>
<div class='full_height_div'>
<div class='square_set_width'></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
So, this is what the above incorrect markup looks like:
And this is what i want it to look like:
I know I could find the blue square percentage height in javascript, then set the width to be equal to this height, but it would be really handy if there is a pure css fix for what I am trying to do. I will be using this structure a lot and I don't really want to go writing code to resize all the divs on my page.
you have to use javascript for that. If I understood you, you want a perfect blue square. Use
var height = $('.square_set_width').height();
$('.square_set_width').css('width',height);
here is a jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/a8kxu/
Edit: instead of doing padding-bottom: 30% do height: 70% instead. Here is another fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/a8kxu/1/
Edit #2: Sorry, but you cant use css to do this. Its not powerful enough
If i understand you correctly
you can do
#divID {
width: 75%;
margin-left: auto; // this is used to center the container
margin-right: auto;// this as well
}