Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: SlideShowPro  (Read 4430 times)
jpjespersen
Guest
« on: January 01, 2008, 10:14:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi I am testing my new SlideShowPro slide shows, to hopefully replace the ones on my website now.
Can you people please tell me how this looks on your system.  There is a full screen button in the lower right corner.
Is this really slow for you?
http://imagesofnight.com/gallery1/index.html
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7463



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2008, 10:27:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Works fine and fast enough on both Opera 9.25 and Firefox 2.0.0.11, but I'm on fibre optics DSL which is pretty fast.

Very nice images!
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2464



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2008, 10:46:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks fine in Firefox on a Mac laptop.

Have you noticed that if the visitor clicks the image, the jpeg opens in its own window? You might want to disable this - I can't remember which setting you need to change.

You're also displaying the album and full screen buttons. Deliberate? These are controlled in the navigation buttons area.

John
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2008, 01:28:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I found it played a bit slow and things took a long while to load, but my useless ISP [Virgin] throttles my connection, even though they make a big deal in their advertising about 'No Limits'. Lying bastards! A shame  as my ISP used to be always rated one of the best then they were taken over by one of the worst in the UK [NTL] who were subsequently taken over by Virgin who made NTL look good!!  Off topic rant, but my 4M web browing is dial up like a lot of the time.    
Image 2 is particularly stunning BTW.

I just timed image load time and it took 35 secs to load a pic. Did I mention I hate my ISP? But then when clicked on, it revealed the larger JPEG [1200x800 + 243K !!] in it's own window immediately. Like John I'd suggest disabling the popup feature as it allows people to nick your images so much more easily.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 01:34:03 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2184



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2008, 01:42:48 PM »
ReplyReply

You need to opimize the images, they are way too large in file size for the image size - way too slow.  Make it auto play, and give it some sound if you really meant slideshow - it's boring.  If you just want a gallery, it's good.
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2464



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2008, 01:47:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You need to opimize the images, they are way too large in file size for the image size - way too slow. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point - I see now that the second image for example is 288 kb and 1200x800 but is displayed much smaller in the Flash.

John
Logged

englishm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2008, 01:52:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Individual images can be a tad slow to load.  You might want to consider allowing SSP to cache your images and thumbs.  This makes a big difference in my experience.  While the viewer is looking at the first image, others are being cached behind the scenes (at least that's my interpretation). This is done under Options>Cache Content: All.

You can turn off hyperlinks under Images>Attach Hyperlinks:  (deselect)

If you plan to change content frequently, you might also consider SSP Director.  At $29  $25 for SSP-Lightroom, you basically have a Livebooks sight at a small fraction of the cost.

Nice images BTW.
Logged

jpjespersen
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2008, 03:08:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for all the great advice guys.  About the image size.. I wanted large images so in the full screen mode they are nice and big, I guess I will just bring down the jpeg quality, right now it is at 80
I will put an updated slideshow up shortly.  You've all helped a lot.  This is my first time using slideshowpro.
JP
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 03:12:00 PM by jpjespersen » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2464



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2008, 03:15:46 PM »
ReplyReply

My understanding was that cache makes individual pictures load faster but at the price of slowing down the initial download. From the user guide - "if bandwidth isn't a concern, it's there for you to use".

John
Logged

jpjespersen
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2008, 03:39:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I did a test, one with 'All' Cached   and one without caching.
Which one is better for you?
NO CACHE -- http://imagesofnight.com/gallery1/index.html
CACHE -- http://imagesofnight.com/gallery1cache/index.html

At first glance it may seem that Cache works better.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 03:39:44 PM by jpjespersen » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2464



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2008, 03:16:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I honestly don't think the cache made any real difference to the visitor experience. In the cache version, the thumbnails seemed to load slower - I assume because the movie is giving priority to the full size images. But that's unimportant to the visitor and I got to see the first images in about the same time, so I'd go with the non-cached version. (The cached version would mean you would be using more bandwidth, which may be important if you're close to your hosting limit).

I suspect what will make the biggest difference is sizing the jpegs so they are no bigger than the size as they are displayed in the movie.

John
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad