Hi There !
We have released the beta version of thumbalizr. Please make your comments here.
Any feedback is welcome !!
Don't forget to signup ;-)
Thanks
Alex
thumbalizr Supportforum » Official news
beta version live
(9 posts)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
You have got to be kidding me, am I reading that wrong, or are you really going to charge for this, _and_ only make .pngs available to paid users? Yeah, I think I'm really gonna get a silver or gold subscription for something firefox can do for free, and in more than one way, sure thing... But hey, it only took you 3 whole months to think about really doing something in .png, and your .jpgs look even crappier than ever, maybe it's so people think it's so bad they'll pay for the service? Oh, wait, or maybe they can have the same thing for free (to some would be even easier, to other, a minor inconvenience), there are tons of free apps, and the popular "Alt + Print Screen". Like someone else on the web said "Are they waiting for Google to take over for X billion dollars when they have captured enough screenshots", I honestly wish you the best of luck with that, I really do. I can see your service is somewhat popular, and I hope it will continue flourishing, even with the 'free crappy quality' and the 'only paid good quality although there are equal solutions in programs and other websites for free'
Posted 2 years ago # -
You're right ... we're not google ...
It's all about bandwith and storage ... png are bigger than jpg. 80% jpg is bigger than 100% jpg. We don't want to get X billions ... we just want to get out of minus.
As you can see ... the free sign up makes you able to shoot png pictures online but not with API ....
If we held 80.000+ pictures and the corresponding thumbnails - and users (webmasters) are not using local cache - and we'll shot the page every x days .... you can calculate the cost with a cool (free for windows users) tool called "calc".
Use alt + print screen '( I would prefer SnagIT), upload your shot and save costs .... or use any familiar web-service solutions. (They've already been bought by someone with a big wallet).
If you run low budget, why don't you take low quality ... check famous video portals ... they're all serving in low quality ...
MP3 downloads are announced as Mobile-Downloads ... do you think this is high quality if you listen to a chart song with your mobile speaker ?Maybe we'll provide better quality for non-paid users within our API ... but only if we can make sure that no one is reselling or abuse our services.
Currently, we've tons of requests asking for PDF, MP3 and maliciuos websites ... What do you think how this should be handled ?
I'll buy a new Porsche now ... if I can make a decision for the color ......
After this, I'll check my Lear-Jet if they have implemented my new entertainment system.Posted 2 years ago # -
"the free sign up makes you able to shoot png pictures online but not with API"
that was my mistake (wrong resolution), and I apologise for it"you can calculate the cost with a cool (free for windows users) tool called "calc""
should I assume you know I'm not running windows? there's also a better way than that, and free on any operating system, called "google calculator""I would prefer SnagIT"
almost everyone would prefer snagit, but it's not free, and I only talked about cost free options"upload your shot and save costs"
would be glad to, but I don't really see how uploading my shot would save you any noticeable bandwidth, and the time it would take for me to know someone wants a shot of a webpage and which, taking it, and uploading it, the user would have time to draw the page by hand"or use any familiar web-service solutions. (They've already been bought by someone with a big wallet)."
and should I assume here you thought I was being sarcastic? I really wish this service the best of luck, you have (for an online service), something most don't have, full-page support, and that is a big plus"If you run low budget, why don't you take low quality ... check famous video portals ... they're all serving in low quality ...
MP3 downloads are announced as Mobile-Downloads ..."
well, I hate all of those (because of the low quality), but I can see your point for the average internet user"Maybe we'll provide better quality for non-paid users within our API ... but only if we can make sure that no one is reselling or abuse our services."
fair enough"Currently, we've tons of requests asking for PDF, MP3 and maliciuos websites ... What do you think how this should be handled ?"
automated script, website blacklisted, temporary ip-ban of userAnother thing, do people that do a full-page capture, 1280 pixels wide, really need the 'thumbnail' online for long? And does the same page get requested so often in a short period that it would compensate storing it for long periods? And how do you do your storage? Having the user select the page width _before_ thumbnailing it wouldn't be able to save some [storage]?
Posted 2 years ago # -
ok, I see we're not far away each other ....
Thanks for your feedback .The lifetime for images (source and thumbs) is max 1 week. After this time, we'll decide to recapture or purge the website. There're scripts to optimize storage and in combination with expiration headers and the PHP local cache script, we should be able to optimize our bandwith too.
One reason why we have released the API key is to avoid spamming and identify malicious requests. We'll tie api keys to IP addresses and get away from the referer - since they can be hidden or modified.
Posted 2 years ago # -
thank you for your responses, and I have 2 other questions.
here - http://www.i-ssential.de/thumbalizr-forum/topic.php?id=11&page&replies=2 - you state that you are using the IE engine, my first question is "why?" (just curious, as why IE and not something open source, but I guess it's for the (low) number of websites that only work in IE?).
Second question is, I've been doing some tests and, well, just take this two examples, in each one, I took a full-page screenshot of a web page, first with the "Pearl Crescent Page Saver" extension for firefox, and then with thumbalizr. My screen resolution is 1280x1024, so that's what I chose in thumbalizr too (1280). The shots have a slight difference in dimensions, maybe it has something to do with how IE and firefox are seeing them, but I have to say that thumbalizr's shot is worse, fonts look all jagged, whereas in firefox, they look smooth, and somethings are differently aligned (although I have to take firefox's side on this one, because it looks the same as in opera). The other real killer, is file size. I'll post file sizes and dimensions for both, so you can see they are not that different.
website - http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks
Firefox - 1264x6905 - 644KB
Thumbalizr - 1280x7574 - 28MB (28488KB)website - http://www.storylog.com/
Firefox - 1264x2895 - 248KB
Thumbalizr - 1280x3161 - 12MB (11896KB)and yes, all sizes are correct, "KB" and "MB" are meant to be where they are, the somewhat big difference in heights can probably be explained by the way each browser is rendering alignments and etc, because both show the whole page, no information is being lost. My question, is what is thumbalizr doing to create so much bigger file sizes?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi,
1. yes, you're right.
2. it looks like a problem while generating the final output file. Our source file is similar to your firefox values. I'll check this.Posted 2 years ago # -
2. Fixed
Posted 2 years ago # -
I agree with you.
____________
cheap NFL jerseysonline shop
Find the jerseys you need to support your idol.Posted 1 month ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.