incorrect image dimensions minecraft что делать
Рекомендуемые сообщения
Для публикации сообщений создайте учётную запись или авторизуйтесь
Вы должны быть пользователем, чтобы оставить комментарий
Создать учетную запись
Зарегистрируйте новую учётную запись в нашем сообществе. Это очень просто!
Войти
Уже есть аккаунт? Войти в систему.
Похожий контент
490
Скачать/Купить дополнение
Есть такая проблема. Попросили помочь с настройкой магазина. Стоит на шаблоне ocStore 3.0.2.0
Сайт http://kristall-azot.ru/
1. Никак не могу понять, как включить отображение карточек товаров, а также, чтобы категории тоже в ЧПУ менялись.
То бишь отключить этот каталожный режим.
2. А еще как убрать /home в ЧПУ на главной.
Буду очень признателен!
Последние посетители 0 пользователей онлайн
Ни одного зарегистрированного пользователя не просматривает данную страницу
A Guide to Common Aspect Ratios, Image Sizes, and Photograph Sizes
Share this:
Don’t know which size to use for your image or video? We’ve listed common aspect ratios to help you create your next project.
What is an aspect ratio? Let’s start there.
The aspect ratio of an image or video is the proportional relationship of the width to the height. You’ll recognize it as two numbers separated by a colon in an x:y format. For instance, a 6×4 inch image has an aspect ratio of 3:2, whereas a 1920×1080 pixel video has an aspect ratio of 16:9.
An aspect ratio does not have units attached—instead, it represents how large the width is in comparison to the height. This means that an image measured in centimeters will have the same aspect ratio even if it was measured in inches. The relationship between its width and height determines the ratio and shape, but not the image’s actual size.
Aspect ratios are a critical part of web content because images need to be uploaded at different aspect ratios for different uses, like desktop vs. mobile or blog vs. social media. When you use the right aspect ratios, it ensures your images or videos are displayed as intended without stretching or loss of resolution. Having an incorrect aspect ratio for your project can affect the end-user experience.
Let’s go over some common aspect ratios that are typically used across different spaces.
Common Image Aspect Ratios
Different aspect ratios have a different effect on the image being used. An image set in a 1:1 ratio vs. a 5:4 ratio changes the composition and how the photo is perceived.
For example, the image below used in a square format—typical of social media profile pictures or Instagram feed photos—is distinct from the same image framed in a 5:4 ratio.
The background in the 5:4 ratio takes up more space around the subject, placing the subject towards the bottom-left corner. It is crucial to keep the overall composition in mind when selecting an aspect ratio for your image.
1:1 Ratio
A 1:1 ratio means that an image’s width and height are equal, creating a square. Some common 1:1 ratios are an 8″x8″ photo, a 1080 x 1080 pixel image, or typically any profile picture template on social media sites. This aspect ratio is commonly used for print photographs, mobile screens, and social media platforms, but it’s not ideal for most TV or digital formats.
3:2 Ratio
The 3:2 ratio has roots in 35mm film and photography, and is still widely used for print sizes. Images framed at 1080×720 pixels or 6″x4″ are set within this aspect ratio.
5:4 Ratio
Last but not least, this ratio is mostly common in photography and art prints, and large and medium format film cameras. When printing 8″x10″ and 16″x20″ images, you’re sticking to the 5:4 aspect ratio.
Common Video Aspect Ratios
Similar to image aspect ratios, the video aspect ratio has a profound effect on its composition. The standard 16:9, which is horizontally oriented, displays differently than the more recent vertically-oriented 9:16 aspect ratio. Always keep the context and composition in mind when choosing an aspect ratio for your project.
16:9 Ratio
The 16:9 ratio is mostly seen on presentation slides, computer monitors, or widescreen TVs. This international standard recently replaced the 4:3 ratio for monitors and TV screens, creating a slimmer, more elongated rectangular shape compared to the 4:3 format. Common resolutions in the 16:9 ratio are 1920×1080 pixels and 1280×720 pixels.
9:16 Ratio
An inverse of the 16:9 ratio, the 9:16 ratio is popularly used for social media platforms with video story capabilities, such as Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat. The most common dimension in this aspect ratio is 1080×1920 pixels, which equates to a smartphone’s vertical screen size.
How to Measure Image Size
Unlike aspect ratios, image size determines an image’s actual width and height in pixels. Image size equals the dimensions of an image. You can measure image dimensions in any unit, but you’ll typically see pixels used for web or digital images, and inches used for print images.
It’s important to note that two different images that have the same aspect ratio may not have the same image size or dimensions. For instance, an image sized at 1920×1080 pixels has an aspect ratio of 16:9, and an image sized at 1280×720 pixels also has a ratio of 16:9.
Common Image Sizes for Web
If you’re uploading images on the web, it’s crucial to understand image size specifications because incorrect image sizes may stretch or distort to fill fixed dimensions.
When you’re working on a website builder or content management system (CMS), like WordPress or Squarespace, the image size requirements will vary according to the theme or template you’re using. Often, the website builder will resize images for you so that they display correctly in several different formats.
To therefore satisfy several different standard image sizes, upload an image that’s big enough to reduce without losing resolution and small enough to comfortably fit the width of a standard screen.
Squarespace recommends uploading images between 1500 and 2500 pixels wide. Check your template or theme on whatever CMS you’re using to determine the right image size to upload.
Similarly, social media websites will often resize images for you, but there’s a sweet spot that will ensure your images display correctly at a few different sizes.
Note: Don’t confuse image size with image file size. The image file size is measured in bytes according to how much space it takes up on a disk or drive (think kilobytes or megabytes).
These are some of the most common image sizes for the web.
1920 x 1080 pixels
This standard image size is widely seen across high-definition TVs, presentations, and social media cover photos. It follows the 16:9 aspect ratio.
1280 x 720 pixels
This size follows the standard HD format featured in photography and film. It fits the 16:9 aspect ratio.
1080 x 1080 pixels
You’ll see this 1:1 ratio image size used widely across social media, namely Instagram and Facebook posts.
Common Photograph Sizes
Have you ever wanted to print an image or design, but haven’t figured out which size to use? While you can print an image at any size you want, there are some standard photo sizes that will help you narrow down the options.
Different sizes work in different environments—display larger prints or posters to bring attention to an event or service, and reserve smaller prints for display in homes or on counter space.
Printed images and photos are usually measured in inches, although you might see centimeters used in some countries.
Here are some of the most common photograph sizes.
Note: If you’re framing an image, you might need two measurements: the image size and the matte size. A matte is a border around the image that extends to the frame. When you print photographs to frame, make sure you know the matte opening size.
4 x 6 or 5 x 7 in
These sizes are standard and popular photo sizes, typically for displaying photography or smaller artwork.
8 x 10 in
This size is a step above the smaller popular photography sizes, and is common amongst portraits and larger artwork prints.
8.5 x 11 in
Use this standard flyer size for advertisements displayed in areas with limited space. While not as noticeable as larger poster sizes, the flyer size still aims to alert others in smaller settings.
12 x 18 or 18 x 24 in
Larger than typical flyers, these standard poster sizes are ideal when designing for events or advertisements that need to reach a medium audience.
24 x 36 in
Advertisers use this poster size for outdoor advertisements and specified display cases along high-traffic locations.
Creating Custom Image Sizes
Resizing your images shouldn’t be a hassle. These three options—Shutterstock Image Resizer, Shutterstock Editor, and PicMonkey—all make it easy for you to customize your image sizes.
Shutterstock’s Image Resizer
Shutterstock’s Image Resizer takes the guesswork out of resizing your own images. Simply drag-and-drop the image of your choice and select the image size on the right. Once you’ve determined the correct size, hit the Download button and you’re all set.
Shutterstock Editor
You can create your own custom sizes and resize images in Shutterstock Editor with ease. Upon entering the program, you’re prompted with a dialog box that presents Custom Size options in pixels, inches, and centimeters. You’ll also find Preset options for specific applications, such as an Instagram Post.
After selecting the initial image size for your project, you can upload your own images, search from Shutterstock’s image library, or choose from a variety of templates catered to your image dimensions.
If you ever need to change your mind, you can easily change the image size by heading to Canvas Size at the top of Shutterstock Editor, then selecting a preset, or entering your own dimensions.
PicMonkey
Recently acquired by Shutterstock, PicMonkey offers a powerful graphic design tool that enables you to easily adjust canvas sizes for different mediums. Upon setting up an account, PicMonkey prompts you to select a preset size or even create a custom size.
Once you’re in the program, you can easily adjust the canvas size by going over to Edits on the far left-hand side. In the Crop Canvas panel, you can select specific Aspect Ratios from various dropdown options, or enter in custom Width and Height dimensions.
Beneath, you can find the Resize panel where you can also enter specific Width and Height dimensions. Hit Apply once you’re finished to see your newly resized design.
Interested in improving your image and photo knowledge? Look into these essential articles:
Incorrect image dimensions after reading in 3D+c TIFF #226
Comments
jni commented Feb 23, 2017
I’m trying to read the following file:
skimage (ie tifffile) reads this correctly, but imageio doesn’t — even though I thought it also used tifffile as a backend for tiffs?
What imageio is doing is reading the file in the array order present in the file (plane, channel, row, column), and squashing pln and ch dimensions together, while skimage is behaving as expected and producing two separate dimensions for pln and ch and (maybe a bit more than expected) moving ch to the last dimension, which is the dimension order expected by most scipy packages.
Any ideas about what is going wrong here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
cgohlke commented Feb 23, 2017
cgohlke commented Feb 23, 2017
The file E_z2_512_1um_CONTROL.tif is a ImageJ hyperstack. Newer tifffile.py versions by default try to read these files in a fast mode and return all the data in the file as one contiguous array when requesting the data from first TIFF page. Other TIFF pages are discarded. This allows for memory mapping the data in the file, it significantly speeds up parsing hyperstack files with thousands TIFF pages, and it correctly reads corrupted TIFF files >4 GB.
imageio.imread(‘E_z2_512_1um_CONTROL.tif’) returns the data from the first TIFF page. Disable the fast ImageJ hyperstack mode in imageio, e.g. imageio.imread(‘E_z2_512_1um_CONTROL.tif’, fastij=False) to get the expected result.
skimage.io.imread(‘E_z2_512_1um_CONTROL.tif’) returns the data of the first series of images in the file. These data are shaped according to the metadata in the file. To read the data from the first TIFF page, use skimage.io.imread(‘E_z2_512_1um_CONTROL.tif’, img_num=0) instead. The released version of scikit-image contains an old version of tifffile without fast ImageJ hyperstack handling.
Besides this, iterating over or indexing individual TIFF pages in ImageJ hyperstacks, OME-TIFF, LSM or STK files containing high dimensional data are most often not what one wants.
Expected Image Size is incorrect #10802
Comments
tmb-github commented May 18, 2020
OS: Windows 8.1
Chrome: Version 85.0.4148.0 (Official Build) canary (64-bit)
Lighthouse Version: 6.0.0
Website: https://thomasbrodhead.com
In the Best Practices audit, using Mobile mode, Lighthouse reports:
Displays images with inappropriate size
Image natural dimensions should be proportional to the display size and the pixel ratio to maximize image clarity
URL: …header/thomas-brodhead-logo-115×35.201….webp(thomasbrodhead.com)
Displayed size: 115 x 35
Actual size: 115 x 35
Expected size: 345 x 105
The image is 115×35 in natural and display size, and yet Lighthouse multiplies the display size by the D.P.R. (3.0) of the new default Moto mobile device and (apparently) incorrectly concludes it should be 345×105 ( = 115×35 * 3).
This isn’t a problem is the stable version of Chrome (Version 81.0.4044.138 (Official Build) (64-bit)), which does not complain about the image during the audit.
Steps to reproduce:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
patrickhulce commented May 18, 2020
This is the intended behavior of the best practice audit @tmb-github. The audit is advocating for true responsive images that when a client requests a high DPR image, they receive one.
medicalspanw commented Jun 12, 2020
Using Chromium Version 81.0.4044.138 (openSUSE Build) (64-bit). openSuse Leap 15.2
I am experiencing a similar problem. I am loading a total of 17 images. Lighthouse is flagging just 2 of the images with the same error. The sizes specified in html, the displayed size and actual size are correct. Yet, Lighthouse is expecting something else. They are as follows:
Image size is 44×44. Lighthouse is expecting 116×116.
Image size is 360×135. Lighthouse is expecting 945×355
I’m not sure where Lighthouse is getting the expected size information. It is possible that the image metadata is incorrect?
tmb-github commented Jun 12, 2020
@medicalspanw It’s expecting you to supply additional images using the srcset attribute. You’ll have to consider not just the width of various display devices, but the DPR (Device Pixel Ratio), which is a multiplier. A device with a DPR of 2 will want images at twice the effective size specified by the HTML and/or CSS; a device with a DPR of 3 will want images at three times the effective size, etc.
zaneclaes commented Jul 31, 2020 •
Specifically, Lighthouse reports that the 1024w option is chosen, when there are larger variants available at 1536w and 1920w boundaries. I have not explicitly set a 2x or 3x flag, but neither did I do so on the images which passed the test.
FWIW, here is the failing HTML:
dixonge commented Aug 24, 2020
Specifically, Lighthouse reports that the 1024w option is chosen, when there are larger variants available at 1536w and 1920w boundaries. I have not explicitly set a 2x or 3x flag, but neither did I do so on the images which passed the test.
FWIW, here is the failing HTML:
I’m running into the same problem. Did you find an answer to this?
tmb-github commented Aug 25, 2020
@dixonge If the page in question is at https://www.technicallywizardry.com/diy-dashcam-raspberry-pi-zero-w-motion-eye, I can’t reproduce the error in LightHouse, either in the current Chrome or in Chrome Canary. But as I last wrote, the issue is that you must take the DPR of the device being tested into consideration. If the image will be sized by the CSS to be 100x200px, and the DPR of the device is 3, then the browser will expect a 300x600px image to be available. You’ll have to identify the image in question, find it in the DOM display in DevTools, hover over the element in the DOM display, and the effective size will be revealed. If it’s 50×75 and the DPR is 2.5. then you’ll need a 125×187.5 (rounded to 125×188) image in the srcset. Determine the DPR by examining the mobile device used by Lighthouse in the audit, currently Moto G4. which has a DPR of 3.0.
dixonge commented Aug 25, 2020
@dixonge If the page in question is at https://www.technicallywizardry.com/diy-dashcam-raspberry-pi-zero-w-motion-eye, I can’t reproduce the error in LightHouse, either in the current Chrome or in Chrome Canary. But as I last wrote, the issue is that you must take the DPR of the device being tested into consideration. If the image will be sized by the CSS to be 100x200px, and the DPR of the device is 3, then the browser will expect a 300x600px image to be available. You’ll have to identify the image in question, find it in the DOM display in DevTools, hover over the element in the DOM display, and the effective size will be revealed. If it’s 50×75 and the DPR is 2.5. then you’ll need a 125×187.5 (rounded to 125×188) image in the srcset. Determine the DPR by examining the mobile device used by Lighthouse in the audit, currently Moto G4. which has a DPR of 3.0.
No, that’s not a page I am familiar with.
tmb-github commented Aug 25, 2020
Looking at your page while displaying it on a Moto G4, I now see what you’re confronting. If you select the element for inspection in the DOM display in DevTools, and also look at its rendered size in the computed styles display (the one with the box model), your HTML and CSS work together to tell the browser that the size of the element is 960×110. If it should be less than that on mobile, you’ll need to look at your CSS to determine how it’s computing that size. The DOM inspector doesn’t lie: something about your CSS rules is indicating that that is the rendered size, and you’ll have to analyze the CSS to get to the bottom of it and revise it.
That’s step 1. Step 2 is understanding the DPR of mobile devices. The Moto G4 has a DPR of 3.0. That means that if the rendered size of an image is 100×100 (following the sizing calculations of the CSS that affects it), the Moto G4 will want a 300×300 image to use for display. You multiply the rendered size by the DPR to determine the size that should be present in your srcset. Liighthouse offers a little bit of wiggle room there, and if you look at the JS for its routine, you can find out by how many pixels or by what percent greater it will accept a size that you offer in the srcset. But you should target the size that the Moto G4 expects in this case if you want to please Lighthouse.
And in the case of that image, because the CSS indicates to the browser that the rendered size is 960×110, then the Moto G4 expects an image 3 times as large, 2880×330.
The main issue here would seem to be your CSS. You’ll have to explore the interaction of the style rules not just affecting the image itself, but all of its containers to determine why it expects 960×110 instead of a smaller size when on a smaller device. (Are you not using @media queries in your CSS?)
(Actually, looking at DOM of your page in DevTools, I can’t see you have any CSS that’s affecting that element. The lack of CSS affecting it may be the root of the problem.)
patrickhulce commented Aug 25, 2020
In addition to the great explanations @tmb-github is offering I just wanted to let folks know that in later versions of Lighthouse we reduced the suggestion of this high DPI images audit to a max of 2x. We agree a 3x DPR offers minimal value on mobile and is not worth the byte cost.
zaneclaes commented Aug 25, 2020
I eventually tracked my issue down to this bug with the imagesloaded script, which is included by default on WordPress. I corrected it by forcibly dequeuing the script in a WP hook.
tmb-github commented Aug 25, 2020
@patrickhulce Off-topic re: images and DPR, but could the throttling options once present in Lighthouse be restored? At present, the hard-wired throttling option is a bit draconian (especially the 4x CPU slowdown. what percent of mobile devices are affected by that kind of throttling? The desirability of things to load quickly at different throttling rates may be market-dependent, e.g., the Mercedez-Benz website may have no need to worry about that, but a charitable organization aiming to help disenfranchised people directly may wisely want to accommodate a slower connection and device speed.)
tmb-github commented Aug 26, 2020
@patrickhulce On topic re: image sizes. Instead of testing whether a site has images that meet the demands of one device (with its specific screen size and DPR pitted against the srcset images on the site being tested), why not simply test whether (1) the site is using srcset for its images, and (2) if the srcset sizes are in a decent spread of size values?
A webmaster might factor a lot of things to determine which sizes to include, including demographic information on possible users, and include 6 or more images per element. But currently, if one of them isn’t optimized for the device being tested, then the element fails the test.
My own site has hundreds of images, and when the Lighthouse audit switched to the Moto G4 (and the PageSpeed audit switched to whichever device it’s now using), I had to create hundreds of new images and rework my srcset code to appease the auditor, even though I had specified a more-than-ample range of values for the devices I had calculated were most likely to be used for my site.
Reading that Lighthouse would once again be switching test devices, from a 3.0 DPR to a 2.0 DPR, is chilling: it means the game of whack-a-mole will continue with the srcset tester.
So, rather than test for a specific device, why not look at the range of sizes provided, and see if the spread that’s present there seems sufficient? To be clear, I do not mean checking for a sequence of specific image sizes. Instead, I mean checking to see if the images in «spread» fit a predictable expansion pattern.
For example, 360px. 580px, 768px, 960px. 1200px, 1600px would be a good spread, because there’s a good distance between the smallest and the largest size (360px vs 1600px), and values in between follow a good expansion pattern.
On the other hand, if the sequence were 360px, 380px, 400px, 420px, 440px, 1600px, then it would fail the test, because even though there’s a good spread between the smallest and largest image (360px vs 1600px), the first five images are clustered around 400px, so the internal spread isn’t good.
Also, if the last value in this sequence were 480px and not 1600px, it would fail because there’s not enough distance between 360px and 480px, even though the internal sequence would be a good spread.
Would this not make sense as a better approach to testing image sizes? Wouldn’t it be a better indicator that the page’s images have been sized to meet the demands of a good sample of devices, rather than just one device?
patrickhulce commented Aug 26, 2020
Instead of testing whether a site has images that meet the demands of one device (with its specific screen size and DPR pitted against the srcset images on the site being tested), why not simply test whether (1) the site is using srcset for its images, and (2) if the srcset sizes are in a decent spread of size values?
Simply put: because lots of pages use srcset incorrectly in a way that doesn’t actually consider hidpi images and because manually verifying that these work as expected is not possible without fetching those other resources which Lighthouse is not willing to spend the time doing. Loading as a device that requires at least a 2x image and checking if a 2x image was loaded is the least obtrusive path to validating true responsive image usage.
Reading that Lighthouse would once again be switching test devices, from a 3.0 DPR to a 2.0 DPR, is chilling: it means the game of whack-a-mole will continue with the srcset tester.
This isn’t what’s happening. The test device is not changing, we just loosened the requirement that you deliver an image exactly matching the DPR to you must deliver at least a 2 DPR image if the device DPR is >=2.
My own site has hundreds of images, and when the Lighthouse audit switched to the Moto G4 (and the PageSpeed audit switched to whichever device it’s now using), I had to create hundreds of new images and rework my srcset code to appease the auditor, even though I had specified a more-than-ample range of values for the devices I had calculated were most likely to be used for my site.
Very sorry you had to do this! I’m betting this would have been prevented with the 2x consideration change we made. Apologies that it happened too late after your work had already been done.
Would this not make sense as a better approach to testing image sizes? Wouldn’t it be a better indicator that the page’s images have been sized to meet the demands of a good sample of devices, rather than just one device?
It certainly sounds more comprehensive yes, but as this is not a high priority critical item to tell developers to deliver larger images, we’re ok with only flagging the most basic failures of a single device and be fairly lenient there. If the current policy is still too strict in the latest version of Lighthouse, I’m happy to hear suggestions on how to further loosen it 🙂