{"items": [{"author": "Bil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=662953987772", "anchor": "fb-662953987772", "service": "fb", "text": "That is so cool! Expect the part where it becomes obvious how out of focus the picture is.", "timestamp": "1402346407"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=662961936842", "anchor": "fb-662961936842", "service": "fb", "text": "@Bil: Out of focus? It's fancy pants \"depth of field\" background blur!", "timestamp": "1402348895"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=662963219272", "anchor": "fb-662963219272", "service": "fb", "text": "Whoa, it's also sensitive to the zoom level of the browser.", "timestamp": "1402349487"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=662963798112", "anchor": "fb-662963798112", "service": "fb", "text": "it might be a bit out of focus. there might be some blur from a longish shutter speed. it's from a \"RAW\" image, and RAW images do not come sharpened as jpegs do -- they should be sharpened later, when you \"develop\" them on a computer.", "timestamp": "1402349692"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=662993653282", "anchor": "fb-662993653282", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff, if you want to be fancy pants, you should call it bokeh. (You won't catch me calling it that.)
Back to the srcset, can't they do it with one source file and progressive encoding (in jpeg)?", "timestamp": "1402359370"}, {"author": "Ken", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=663005304932", "anchor": "fb-663005304932", "service": "fb", "text": "Neat! I was able to see the difference by comparing Chrome and Safari.", "timestamp": "1402362822"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=663009546432", "anchor": "fb-663009546432", "service": "fb", "text": "@Andrew: \"can't they do it with one source file and progressive encoding\"
How does the browser tell the server it's done? It could close the connection, but that's a big speed loss because then you can't reuse the connection. It could use a byte-range request, but how does it know what bytes to ask for? And how do you keep these images proxy-cacheable? Separate URLs means we can do this all at the HTML level and can leave HTTP alone.", "timestamp": "1402365261"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=663012944622", "anchor": "fb-663012944622", "service": "fb", "text": "I can't tell if it's in focus or not. I think it's probably camera shake and/or the high ISO. It's hard to make tack-sharp images at 100% and ISO 800 on a crop-body DSLR (you left the EXIF in). http://www.imaging-resource.com/.../D7000/D7000HI_ISO_NR.HTM", "timestamp": "1402366402"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=663021238002", "anchor": "fb-663021238002", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff - I don't know how srcset works, but whether it communicates its desires about dpi to the server or not, it can either do so and get a smaller image, or not do so andr get a progressive image and pull out what it wants, instead of getting a set of images (that I assume are redundant).", "timestamp": "1402369947"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=663041731932", "anchor": "fb-663041731932", "service": "fb", "text": "Andrew: srcset presents a list of choices to the browser, as different URLs labeled with a bit of information about what kind of device they might be useful for. This way the browser can request the most suitable image.
This is also the way adaptive bitrate works with video: for each chunk the browser has a choice of URLs representing different quality levels, and it chooses the best one for the situation.", "timestamp": "1402392056"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=663052889572", "anchor": "fb-663052889572", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff - I see - if the browser is asking for a suitable image, then it's sending information about how much data it needs, so I think the browser wouldn't have to send information about when it was done. The server would just send the right amount of data from the larger image, using a DCT to package the data where the higher resolution data is stored and transmitted later. If it has a choice of URLs, I think it could still do it with one nested source image that works like a set of images.", "timestamp": "1402407304"}, {"author": "Patricia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=663057999332", "anchor": "fb-663057999332", "service": "fb", "text": "Looks really blurry from Firefox via Facebook, where I see 1x on the image, but the physical image with is 8.5\". Looks sharp on Chrome (no facebook), where I see 2x but the physical image is 6.375\"; looking at the 1x image direct on the blog on Firefox, the width is 7\" and it doesn't look quite as bad as the Facebook version.
And if I zoom the blog-direct image to 8.5\" in another window, and compare it to the facebook version, I can see a number of degraded details on facebook -- twigs against the sky in the background.
Facebook is hell on images.", "timestamp": "1402410335"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/662952795162?comment_id=663059825672", "anchor": "fb-663059825672", "service": "fb", "text": "@Patricia: what kind of computer is this on?", "timestamp": "1402411587"}]}