I'm working on a photography site with a lot of images and they have no fixed height and width as I want this site to be 100% fluid: how do you work around the ugly Chrome repaint of the images? (i.e. Images are first displayed at zero height and then rescaled to their final size moving around the entire layout)
I've tried pretty much everything and my last option is to hide the image repaint with a black div and then set its opacity to 0 when images are finished loading (BTW, I've tried this with a (document).ready call but it seems too soon: how would you do it?)
Specify your image's height and width attribute / its dimensions.
<img src="img.jpg" width="125" height="60" alt="My First Photograph ever">
This helps the browser avoid a second pass to layout your page and it optimizes page load as well! :)
Chrome (or any browser really) cannot avoid this 'repainting', since they don't know on forehand what size your images will be.
Thus, you will need to explicitly specify the sizes of your images, either in the image width and height properties itself, or via CSS.
I know I am more than two years late, but how about the practice suggested here?
<div class="embed-container ratio-16-9">
<img src="imgage.jpg"/>
</div>
.embed-container {
position: relative;
height: 0;
overflow: hidden;
background-color:black;
}
.ratio-16-9{
padding-bottom:56.25%; /* 9/16*100 */
}
.ratio-4-3{
padding-bottom:75%; /* 3/4*100 */
}
.ratio-1-1{
padding-bottom:100%; /* ... */
Also, an important remark from the comments section to pay attention to, and improve upon the original technique:
Nice trick. However, if I was you, I would replace the "img" tag with
a background image on your div (and background-size: cover or
contain). That would avoid you the position trick, the overflow trick,
and a lot of work for the browser.
I hope someone will find this useful.
It’s hard to test, but you could try setting width/height in CSS
img {display: block; width: 100%; height: auto;}
if you want the images to be full-width. This might prevent a full-page repaint, but of course there’ll be some repaint regardless as images load. You can also investigate what’s happening with Chrome’s --show-paint-rects
Hope that helps
Related
Hoping this jumps out at someone...
I'm using Fancybox 1.3 w/Foundation. The issue I'm having is something in the Foundation CSS is forcing my Fancybox pop-up to render too small. When I inspect the HTML on the rendered page, I see an inline style setting the height at 175px...
I'm stumped. If I remove the Foundation CSS file the problem goes away. I'm guessing I need to change something in the Height attribute but haven't had any luck.
Sample:
http://198.cmsintelligence.com/site/about-us (click 'play this video')
Without more code it's hard to debug in dev tools. But I believe your culprit is here: #fancybox-inner object {
In DEV tools that ID is applying 100% height to an object, which is what is loading your video. The object itself has a height value of 600px, but it's being overridden because that ID above also has !important on the height.
Also the height of 175px you mentioned, that inline styling is being generated dynamically based on content nested deeper within. I don't believe the fault is there.
EDIT: Got it!
I have highlighted the culprits in an image below. The first is on Line 20 of fancybox.css - the last two line 1 of foundation.min.css (no doubt a huge reset rule). Override these in some way and you'll be golden.
#fancybox-inner embed, #fancybox-inner object {
height: 100% !important;
}
object, embed {
height: 100%;
}
img, object, embed {
max-width: 100%;
height: auto;
}
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/fancyboxbug.jpg/
Just an idea, maybe you've tried it since it's pretty in your face. Like you said, the inline style is making it 175px so why not override it in your Foundatino CSS.
div#fancybox-wrap{
height: 480px;
}
You can always add !important at the end of the height(ex. height: 480px !important;) to force it to be that height always, or use em (ex. height: 3em;) to make it fluid and change depending on the screen size your viewer is using. Again all newbie things since I'm not that vintage in this field but maybe that helps in some way.
I'm having a big issue with something so "small" I can't figure it out and I'm reaching out to everyone here. The issue I'm having is this:
I have photos which are roughly 512px or 800px wide I want to fit, CENTERED, in a circle display area and keep my hover effects. I also need to size them the photos so the centered part shows a decent amount of the photo.
The current code I'm working with will make them perfect circles IF the photos are perfect squares. The problem is when the photo is a rectangle, it turns into an oval.
I had created a div like below using overflow:hidden and the css but it conflicted with the current CSS. Any help would be appreciated immensely!
.thumby {
width:200px;
margin: 0 auto;
overflow:hidden;
position: relative;
height: 200px;
border-radius: 100% 100% 100% 100%;
}
img.absolutely {
left: 50%;
margin-left: -256px;
top: 50%;
margin-top: -200px;
position:absolute;
width:512px;
}
Here's the link to my dev pages.
http://www.lmcodebox.com/b-test/index5.html
http://www.lmcodebox.com/b-test/portfolio.html
have you thought about setting the image as the background of the div? This way you keep all the effects you already use and there are ways to manipulate the background position without affecting the outside div. Other possible solution to have perfect round divs, is to use the ::after pseudo-class, like in this gallery tutorial:
http://webdesignerwall.com/tutorials/decorative-css-gallery-part-2
Sorry if I misunderstood you, hope it helps.
PS.: Beautiful test page by the way.
Well first, you'd only need to set the border radius to 50% to make something a circle, and if each corner is the same value, then you can just enter it once like so:
border-radius:50%;
As far as these images being rectangles goes, you could set your images as the background of a span, give it a height and a width that forms as square and use display block. This would keep the photos proportional, but allow you to make them square.
This however, could create a bit of a markup mess if you have a lot of images to display. Another solution, which means more work, but I would personaly do it, is to just crop your images into squares for their thumbnail with photoshop or some other image editing tool.
Above all of that, I don't see a width or height actually declared on the pages you linked. Are you sure you've placed them on the correct class? I see the border radius declared, but I'm only seeing a max-width: 100%; not width: 200px or height:200px
I re-thought the problem with the suggestion of using the images as backgrounds of an element as madaaah did above.
What I ended up doing was wrapping a DIV around my A tag like this:
then, I set the background of the A like this: style="background:url(PHOTO URL HERE) no-repeat;background-position:center;">
lastly, I made a square image (800 x 800) to go inside the A tag so it would keep the round shape and made it completely transparent so the background image is visible, while growing and shrinking in a "responsive" manner.
A few weeks ago I working on this site. This is my next portfolio site. I want to make this structure, when I finish:
Header
Horizontal image gallery with floating height
Footer
I want to create something similar, just like the 22slides.com portfolio sites for photographers. If you change your browser's window size or press full screen button, the img element or the image's div automatically change his height.
I putted in the CSS a "max-height" parameter, to prevent the images never become bigger than their original resolution. It's a serious issue on huge resolution screens. but in Chrome it's not working properly, because the aspect ratios become wrong. If you press full screen, the aspect ratio more bad. In every other latest browser (Firefox, Safari, Opera, IE8-9) working normally. I created a custome CSS only for chrome with this command (but now I uncommented this in HTML to show you the Chrome aspect ratio problem):
#portfolio img { max-height: none; }
So with this line, the images using the biggest possible height in Chrome and the aspect ratios are correct. But it's a problem for me. I not want that a 1024x683px image showed bigger than his actual resolution on a FullHD monitor.
I think the best solution, if there's a javascript, which is dynamically escribe a width and height for every single image and keep the original aspect ratio. 22slides.com using something similar javascript, but I'm not a javascript programmer at all. :(
The images HTML structure:
<div id="portfolio">
<img src="image1.jpg" alt="" />
<img src="image2.jpg" alt="" />
</div>
CSS (max-height is very little number, just to show you the problem in Chrome):
#portfolio { white-space: nowrap; float: left; }
#portfolio img { height: 100%; width: auto !important; min-height: 150px; max-height: 350px; }
I'm using this Jquery Javascript to dynamically change the image's height and bring back the image's overflow on the screen with 130px negative height. Probably not this script causing the problem, becuase if I turn it off, the aspect ratios are more bad in Chrome:
// Dynamical vertical resizing on images and Correct the height (to not overflow the screen)
$(document).ready(function(){
$(window).load(function(){ // On load
$('#portfolio img').css({'height':(($(window).height())-130)+'px'}); // Adjust the number if you change something in CSS
});
$(window).resize(function(){ // On resize
$('#portfolio img').css({'height':(($(window).height())-130)+'px'}); // Adjust the number if you change something in CSS
});
});
I need help! Thank You!
Update:
This javascript written by "Emphram Stavanger" and "nick_w" seems to solve my image fit to browser height problem:
Imagefit vertically
I tried and it's perfectly working with one single image. The image fitting in the available viewport window perfectly, with correct aspect ratio! There is a visual explanation for our problem made by "Emphram Stavanger":
http://www.swfme.com/view/1064342
JsFiddle demo (Basicly it's Emphram Stavanger's code, I just putted in the changes by nick_W, changed Jquery to latest and I putted after the show link:
http://jsfiddle.net/YVqAW/show/
I not tried yet with horizontal scrolling image website, but it's already a big step!
UPDATE 2:
SOLUTION: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20303672/horizontal-image-slideshow-javascript-not-working-properly-with-portrait-oriente
(And I need help again...) :)
A little late but you can use a div with background-image and set background-size: contain instead of an img tag:
div.image{
background-image: url("your/url/here");
background-size:contain;
background-repeat:no-repeat;
background-position:center;
}
Now you can just set your div size to whatever you want and not only will the image keep its aspect ratio it will also be centralized both vertically and horizontally.
The background-size property is ie>=9 only though.
I'm still relatively new to css positioning, but have read a few books and watched a few tutorials. I made some palettes over at colourLovers, and wanted to see how they would look when applied to a website as a color scheme. So, using the little coding knowledge I had, I created a page to demonstrate my color scheme. After a while, it became a sort of self-confidence boost, and I've gotten just about done with it when a little thing caught my attention.
I have a two-column layout - on the left, there is the navigation menu, with a header above and a content section to the right, all in their own divs. My question is this - when I scale the page (as in, make the window for viewing it smaller), the content section gets pushed so it wraps under the Div. The way I could fix this was to make an additional div with no bg color and make it as long as the content that contained the navigation div, so they would line up, but it doesn't fix it if you resize the window.
I'm sure there's an easy fix to this, but my limited knowledge doesn't yet know it. If it helps, I've attached an image file below of what the site looks like in my editor (Coda). I also provide a link to the code of that page of my site which I've uploaded to textsnip. You can find it here - http://textsnip.com/f434fd. I have added comments to mark the header, sidebar, and content sections as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
The easiest solution is to use min-wdith on your container:
<div style="width: 90%; padding: 10px; margin:0 auto; min-width: 400px;">
This won't work on IE6, but will work on everything else. And, if you need IE6, then there are several workarounds that will solve it.
I would suggest you to use % value instead of px.
For example:
Header: 100%;
Nav: 20%;
Content: 80%;
Footer: 100%;
This way, if someone rize the window, it will always display perfect.
Use "float: right" on content DIV. And replace px width with %.
Check out this
You can use CSS Media Queries to adjust things as they get bigger and smaller. For instance, if you wrap your entire page with a div with an ID of wrapper (and use Simon Arnold's solution for the width of the individual elements), then you can do this:
#media (min-width:1200px) {
#wrapper {
width:1100px;
}
}
#media (max-width:1200px) {
#wrapper {
width:90%;
}
}
These set your wrapper to 90% if the screen size is less than 1200px, and 1100px if your screen is bigger than 1200px. Thus, if the browser is wider than 1200px then your page will stay the same size, and if it's smaller then it'll flow nicely.
#media (max-width:700px) {
#wrapper {
width:100%;
}
}
That one makes it wider when the browser gets smaller, and
#media (max-width:400px) {
#wrapper {
width:400px;
}
}
that one sets it to a fixed width when the browser gets really small. Those are really simple queries, if you're interested in learning more about media queries then here's a good place: http://css-tricks.com/6731-css-media-queries/
And of course, it wouldn't hurt to make the page flow between those transitions using CSS3 Transitions.
IE8 and below, unfortunately, do not support media queries. BUT you could read their browser type with PHP instead, and direct them to get a decent browser... It'd help make the web better. ;)
In my page there's only one image. Kind of 1500x3000 px.
In the printer, I need that this image's maximum width to be the width of the page, so I did: width 100% in the css, and it works.
But the height... the old bullshit of height 100% will never work. Because it always will be 100% of the parent container, then someone must have height defined. Or html or body.
So, my question is: make this image fit in one page.
Any ideas?
One way to do it would be to perform some calculations to find out what width would cause the length to be exactly one page, and then set your width in the CSS accordingly.
If I understand this right, could you do
.OnePageImage { height: 100%; width: 600px; }
Where 600px (the width) is the total width of the page. Then the image would fit on one page (albeit with some distortion potentially). You could also add a css page break style to a div before and after the image, which is done like this:
.break { page-break-after:always; }
Then the code would look like this:
<div class="break"></div>
<img src="[your image src]" class="OnePageImage" />
<div class="break"></div>
The only thing that limited the print output to a single page for me was setting the height in cm of a container element that wrapped the entire page, and also setting it's overflow to hidden. For some reason this didn't seem to work on the body element.
body > section {
padding:0 !important;
margin:0 !important;
height:25.7cm !important;
overflow:hidden !important;
}
Incidentally, I had hoped that setting page-break-inside to avoid on the body or the container element might have been the solution to limiting to a single print page but that doesn't seem to have any effect at all.
Ok sorry for putting the "solution" as a comment:
What I've ended up doing was assume that 99% of the clients (that's true) they use a single page size. So I put some warning in the print interface that will only work with the page size "X". too bad. but it's working out so far