KJS wrote:
>> I am familiar with HTML and I have no problem displaying the images
>> and arranging them with CSS and tables. However, my goal is to create
>> an image file of the contents of that webpage.
>>
>>
> So take a screen shot?
>
>
He cant. The screen shot only takes a shot of the screen. This
particular page scrolls out to the side like 100 pages wide (just
guessing).

Wade

--
Registered Linux User: #480675
Registered Linux Machine: #408606
Linux since June 2005

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

> So take a screen shot?
>

The page is wider than the browser window by several orders of magnitude.

--
Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:56:42 -0000, John Abbott <fewclues@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 19:36 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
>
>> Thank you Bas. That website consists of many images, not a single
>> "original" image that can simply be saved. As the page is longer than
>> the browser window, simply taking a snapshot with Ksnapshot will not
>> work.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dotan Cohen
>>
>> http://what-is-what.com
>> http://gibberish.co.il
>>
>
> However if you do a "save page as" you will find a folder filled with
> SINGLE pictures that the author has pasted across the width of the
> picture. If it was not a continuous picture to begin with I imagine
> that the author had the same problems that you are experiencing. Other
> than bookmarking that page I doubt you will find anything that can
> display it even if you were able to capture it.
>
I would imagine the braking up of the image into smaller junks would also
speed the load times up.

--
Steve

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Fri, November 27, 2009 22:28, Steve wrote:
> I would imagine the braking up of the image into smaller junks would also
> speed the load times up.

Exactly.

I haven't looked at the images in detail, but in theory a single black
pixel is enough for the empty space between the planets, and then just
resize the image with html width and height.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Fri, November 27, 2009 23:31, Amedee Van Gasse (ub) wrote:
> On Fri, November 27, 2009 22:28, Steve wrote:
>> I would imagine the braking up of the image into smaller junks would
>> also
>> speed the load times up.
>
> Exactly.
>
> I haven't looked at the images in detail, but in theory a single black
> pixel is enough for the empty space between the planets, and then just
> resize the image with html width and height.

Exactly as I thought.
http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/solarsystem/black.gif is a 8x8
black image that is resized like this:
<TD><IMG SRC="black.gif" ALT="" HEIGHT=8 WIDTH=10000></TD>



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Fri, November 27, 2009 18:46, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> Have you tried Screengrab?
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1146
>>
>
> Yes, it crashes on that page! Even as a new Firefox profile with only
> that single extension, it crashes.

OK, interesting to know.
I'll try it too and if I can confirm a crash, then you could send a bug
report to the author of the addon.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:31:31 -0000, Amedee Van Gasse (ub)
<amedee-ubuntu@amedee.be> wrote:

> On Fri, November 27, 2009 22:28, Steve wrote:
>> I would imagine the braking up of the image into smaller junks would
>> also
>> speed the load times up.
>
> Exactly.
>
> I haven't looked at the images in detail, but in theory a single black
> pixel is enough for the empty space between the planets, and then just
> resize the image with html width and height.
>
>
t
That’s what has been done, a small gif is used and expanded. So the best
capture is a bookmark as somebody already suggested.

--
Steve

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Fri, November 27, 2009 23:35, Amedee Van Gasse (ub) wrote:
> On Fri, November 27, 2009 18:46, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>>> Have you tried Screengrab?
>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1146
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it crashes on that page! Even as a new Firefox profile with only
>> that single extension, it crashes.
>
> OK, interesting to know.
> I'll try it too and if I can confirm a crash, then you could send a bug
> report to the author of the addon.

No crash, but no image saved either.


But please rethink about what you want to do. You want to save an image
that is 2382665 pixels wide. I have a screen height of 1080 pixels so on
my screen there would be 2.4 gigapixels. Not megapixels, gigapixels. And
then you don't have color. Truecolor (16 million color) needs 3 bytes per
pixel, so you're looking at a raw image of 7.2 gigabytes. My computer has
6 gigabytes of RAM and 10 gigabytes of swap, and I'm pretty sure that it
would have a lot of problems with such an image.

OK, png compression would be incredibly efficient because of all the black
pixels, but that would only reduce the file size on disk, not the raw
uncompressed image in memory.

So I think that you are stuck with the current state of technology.
Perhaps if you have a cluster of supercomputers somewhere it could be
done. Or wait a few years until we all have 128 bit processors and 64
gigabytes of RAM...


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Wade Smart wrote:

> KJS wrote:
>>> I am familiar with HTML and I have no problem displaying the images
>>> and arranging them with CSS and tables. However, my goal is to create
>>> an image file of the contents of that webpage.
>>>
>>>
>> So take a screen shot?
>>
>>
> He cant. The screen shot only takes a shot of the screen. This
> particular page scrolls out to the side like 100 pages wide (just
> guessing).

I think it's actually _thousands_!
--
derek


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

> No crash, but no image saved either.
>

Thanks for trying.

> But please rethink about what you want to do. You want to save an image
> that is 2382665 pixels wide. I have a screen height of 1080 pixels so on
> my screen there would be 2.4 gigapixels. Not megapixels, gigapixels. And
> then you don't have color. Truecolor (16 million color) needs 3 bytes per
> pixel, so you're looking at a raw image of 7.2 gigabytes. My computer has
> 6 gigabytes of RAM and 10 gigabytes of swap, and I'm pretty sure that it
> would have a lot of problems with such an image.
>
> OK, png compression would be incredibly efficient because of all the black
> pixels, but that would only reduce the file size on disk, not the raw
> uncompressed image in memory.
>
> So I think that you are stuck with the current state of technology.
> Perhaps if you have a cluster of supercomputers somewhere it could be
> done. Or wait a few years until we all have 128 bit processors and 64
> gigabytes of RAM...
>

Actually, all the Dionean computers, like most Saturnian systems, have
been running 256 bit instruction sets for at least the past 15-20
orbits. 64 Gigabytes of RAM is nothing today, in fact this system is
rather old and has 512 Gigabytes of WDRAM installed. This processing
power is necessary to handle the quantum entanglement needed to access
Earthian computer networks with reasonable latency.

But I see your point. With Earth-standard technology I agree that
converting the page into an image would be unreasonable. Thanks for
pointing that out, I really should have thought about that before
posting!

--
Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users