Page 1 of 2

Author:  Johnny's Fan [ March 4th, 2011, 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Coppermine?

Ok, at the moment, there is not a great deal I can do with my section without more help and things being further on in the process. BUT, if we agree Coppermine is the way to go regarding all images/screencaps and the fan art (which is the only non-gallery section currently to be displayed the same way as the gallery), then I am hoping, together with someone who knows Coppermine, has used it before for images etc, myself and that person can get all the images from AU up on there, and we can do that right now without waiting for anything, except maybe new images, but we have enough to keep us busy for now. ;)

So.... do you think Coppermine would make the AU gallery better, more efficient, more inviting and just more professional, or should we stay the same?

P.S Any volunteers to help with the gallery will be welcome as long as you know what you're doing. We can't have more than one clueless person here. :P

Author:  Nurrantiel Mashiara [ March 4th, 2011, 6:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've never been a huge Coppermine fan. I just don't really like the look of it.

Author:  Taurquende [ March 4th, 2011, 6:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm not a fan of Coppermine, either. Maybe for the fan art, but right now I think our gallery is really great (or would be, if it were in order). ;) It's so fast and easy to use, and you don't have to open a new window or go to a different site to view it. Whereas in my experience Coppermine is very slow, overly complicated, and difficult to navigate. I feel like I've wasted tons of time wandering around on Coppermine galleries and none at all in A-U's gallery.

Author:  Aredhel Ar-Feiniel [ March 4th, 2011, 6:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

While Coppermine is very efficient for storing lots of photos, it's pretty bulky and requires a lot more work to setup and maintain than I think we really need. It's also separate from the site - like a forum. I've seen websites where webmasters have integrated Coppermine into their main layout's header/footer, but that probably requires a good deal of knowledge in coding - and someone has to be very comfortable with doing it. All in all, it seems like a lot of extra work to add to our plates and I think we're trying to avoid that?

Author:  Johnny's Fan [ March 4th, 2011, 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Wow.. erm Ok. :P

My thoughts.

The AU galleries currently, require not only the uploading of the images but also as well thumbnails which have to be made - really time consuming. I'm *hoping* Coppermine doesn't require the uploader to create a thumbnail but does it itself?

The thumbnails ar too small I have always felt to thoroughly show the image. In the past, I have missed certain images, because the part of the image most familiar to me, is not what was displayed on the thumbnail. Also, larger thumnails would really take up space.

The ability not to be forewarned of quality is a big massive no-no for me. To have a link that goes; Arwen->High-Res->Lo-Res, the way AU is, would just look like a waste of page space. I have seen proper categories for image groups on Coppermine and it always looks good. We could have for each character for example "High Res", "Lo Res", "Behind the Scenes" etc, to give visitors every image they'd need for that character all in the same place. On AU.. it would just not look good.

I have seen some bad and over complicated Coppermine galleries yes, but I think it would look much neater, personally easier to maintain, and while it would not be on the site, it could still be incorporated with how the rest of the site looks.

Also, visitors can involve themselves with comments and photo ratings.

This to me, is an example of a very good looking gallery. If we wanted to look at Cate's photo's on AU we would have to click Gallery>Cast>Cate Blanchett>image click

Using Coppermine would be no different. It doesn't suit our purpose to add categories for the cast based on what film the picture is from etc, so there would be no more clicking involved. Actor Copprmine galleries usually are "messy" because things need to be categorized. Ours will be the same as always.

Author:  Arwen the webmaster [ March 4th, 2011, 11:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

*pokes head in*

You can always use batch processing in Photoshop, later versions of Paint Shop Pro, or the free to make the thumbnailing process fast. The current gallery script as is only requires that there be a file of the same name in the specified thumbnail folder to match the regular size photo - you don't have to edit any code or anything, just upload both files. The thumbnails are currently as small as they are because A-U used to have bandwidth issues back in the glory days when LotR fandom was at its height. It's not so much a problem anymore, although I don't know what traffic might be like when The Hobbit fever hits full swing.

Coppermine is definitely an option for you to use, as long as someone knows their way around setting up and managing mySQL databases. There is in fact a way to integrate phpBB forum databases with Coppermine so users don't have to re-register if they wish to comment, but I remember it being a little complicated with potential for messing things up. However, if someone wanted to make a forum database backup and try to integrate everything, it could be worth a shot. has also looked promising, at least for me and my personal web projects. Although they mostly advertise it as a free hosted gallery site, you can store images and galleries on your own server. There are tons of customizable skins to choose from, I believe it generates thumbnails for you, and it's pretty sleek. Haven't yet tried it out myself, but it's got potential.

*runs away*

Author:  Nurrantiel Mashiara [ March 11th, 2011, 12:28 am ]
Post subject: 

I realized one of my favorite screencap sites uses Coppermine. :duh: So I guess it's waaay more customizable than I thought, which changes my vote from a "no" to a "whatever the persons willing to do the work on it choose".

Author:  Johnny's Fan [ March 11th, 2011, 11:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've been really involved in the gallery recently *right arm is dead from image clicking*, and I do agree the gallery works as it is now. And it probably is easier to upkeep because at the moment it's all in place and most of the hardwork has been previously done.

I think Coppermine or another website, would look sleeker and allow involvement with members/visitors. I also noticed it comes with ads; does anyone know if we get paid per click or are they just there?

I really like the idea of Coppermine being used, I'm just trying to weigh up the amount of effort it will take to remove old pictures/add new ones with the current menthod, against uploading all the images new and old alike to a new system.

I guess maybe we could put this down as something to do once everything is in place, and everyone involved in this has had a bit of breathing space AU-free, and those interested in making this work could tackle it then? :-)

I had a look at Coppermine a few years ago, and it scared me, but when the time is right, if we choose to use it, I'm prepaed to do battle. :stab:

Author:  ErulissëEnethNîn [ March 12th, 2011, 3:11 am ]
Post subject: 

Maybe the good old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" should apply here.

I've never liked Coppermine (or galleries similar to it). I've always loved the A-U galleries for their simplicity and easy-to-use-style. When using Coppermine galleries, if you click on an image, you then have to click again if you want to view the full size and then have to click back to the thumbnail overview if you don't want to browse through all the photos. I always found all this extra clicking a pain. I just want to click on the individual photos I want to see without being redirected to a whole new page.

I say let the majority be the judge on this. Even if we find someone who can code Coppermine, if the majority votes against it (combined poll votes and thread posts saying "nay") we should listen to that. And vice versa.

And we can always do better thumbnails that show more of the image. Maybe a few pixels larger or something. There's also the option of making thumbnails just the way the pictures look (a widescreen thumbnail for the screen caps, etc), though that won't look as nice and symmetrical as it does now.

Author:  Nurrantiel Mashiara [ March 12th, 2011, 7:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

ErulissëEnethNîn wrote:

And we can always do better thumbnails that show more of the image. Maybe a few pixels larger or something. There's also the option of making thumbnails just the way the pictures look (a widescreen thumbnail for the screen caps, etc), though that won't look as nice and symmetrical as it does now.

I just went through and did the first page on the screencaps, resizing to widescreen thumbnails, to see what it would be like/how long it would take/etc. It only took me about 3 minutes to do it all, so I wouldn't mind going through and just doing that for (at least) the screencap parts.

A mock up of what it would look like.

Author:  Anameleth [ March 12th, 2011, 7:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

^That looks great. I think Eru's right that there's no need to fix something that isn't really broken. The galleries work, and if changing the thumbnails is easy, I think that's what we should do.

Author:  Johnny's Fan [ March 12th, 2011, 7:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

^ Well you know, with this revamp thing, I though no would be a good time to throw this out there and test the waters so to speak. Not broken technically, but most things can be improved. :-)

That looks very good Nurr. I would say that if we went down that road, it would be better just for the screencaps. A lot of the other images are odd shapes and wouldn't all suit that size. I just think with the screencaps some of them are a bit similar and/or gloomy, and having the opportunity to see more before clicking, is a good idea.

Author:  ErulissëEnethNîn [ March 12th, 2011, 8:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Those thumbnails are awesome, Nurr. They definitely have my vote! :)

Author:  Johnny's Fan [ March 12th, 2011, 11:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

While we're sorta :p on the subject of screencaps, what are the opinions regarding the ones we have?

I think someone mentioned that new ones may be needed/added?

Do people think we need new ones?

Personally, I'm not sure how they could be improved and as for choice, I've never been left wanting but I thought maybe it should be mentioned again in case anyone wanted more or something. :-)

Author:  ErulissëEnethNîn [ March 13th, 2011, 5:20 am ]
Post subject: 

I can only recall once or twice when I felt I wanted a screen cap of a particular moment that wasn't available. But I can't for the life of me remember what scene that was. I just popped my DVD into the computer and screen capped it myself.

One thing that should be improved perhaps is the order in which they appear. I think a chronological order would be best as opposed to the slight chaos that exists now.

Author:  Johnny's Fan [ March 13th, 2011, 12:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes, I think that's their only fault really. It looks like it's all three films as well. Arwen thought it might just have been ROTK because it was organized differently to the other two.

I remember a time when they were all in order, so it's strange what could have gone wrong. :P

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group