Image size not set with retina disabled

I should add that you’ll find that code in class-fire-init.php.

THIS IS IT!!!!!!
So perfectly simple and beautiful.

Will of course be included in next release! Thanks @electricfeet

Big smile on my face ??

??

All Hail @electricfeet. This is right up there with antibiotics.

Next: perpetual motion.

Magnifique !
Merci @electricfeet !

He he ?? Thanks guys.

Chappie: not sure if Florey would agree ??

On the issue of the discussion of retina support, although I cannot read javascript, I’ve found out that it doesn’t load both images anyway:

• nikeo is using c.bavota’s code (and retina.js by Imulus). c.bavota clearly states:
  It only makes sense to display a higher quality image if the end user is using a retina display. For our purposes, the best way is with JavaScript. I like to use a script called retina.js by Imulus. It weighs in at only 4kb and adds all the front-end functionality you need to detect a retina display and load the right image.
• But if that’s not enough to convince, I did a small experiment on my browser. First I emptied the cache. Then I went to my site and browsed some images. I then entered about:cache (it’s Firefox) and looked at what images had been downloaded. Answer: no retina images.

So it shouldn’t—it seems—be an issue to leave retina support switched on in all cases anyway. There doesn’t seem to be anything lost (apart from a few nanoseconds to execute a few lines of code).

I’d like to thank (sorry if this sounds like an academy award or something) … I’d like to thank all the mods for their patience while I publicly worried this bug to death over the last few months. Thanks guys ??

ElectricFeet, that’s great information about the retina code. But I’m not convinced that retina-compliant images display exactly the same on a non-retina device as a conventional single resolution image. I’m sure that I have noticed slight changes to the display quality of my single-resolution images after enabling the retina option: they seemed to be a fraction darker, a fraction grainier and perhaps a fraction more contrasty. Not enough for me to get out all my tools and take scientific measurements though…

Your comment about Firefox’s about:cache got me thinking because I need a more reliable method of determining which images are actually being used in my site so that I can delete every other image I have uploaded over the past 6 months. Sounds like I just need to load every page in a cache-empty Firefox to get my answer.

As for your Sherlockian compulsion to solve this mystery, it is highly commendable and the posters on this thread won’t be the only ones grateful for it. Anyway, WP *should* have its Academy Awards or Hall of Fame or MVP Awards imho…

Nope: placebo effect there, I think ??

The code loads either the normal image to a normal screen or the retina image to a high-definition “retina” screen/device.

So retina devices see the retina image (an image twice the px size with a “@2x” suffix), while non-retina devices see the normal image. On a normal screen, you’re seeing the normal image.

…unless, of course, you’ve found a bug in retina.js :-)))

I have an iPod Touch (retina) and can say that retina images really make a difference (I’m lucky to still have good close-up eyesight). They look really sharp and crisp. Even a crap photo looks good on a retina device—probably because most of the web doesn’t have retina support yet, so there’s not that much competition. On my (non-retina) desktop, on the other hand, I view a very good quality screen at arms-length with my computer glasses and can see every pixel. It drives me crazy.

Bottom line: Retina support is a Good Thing, and I don’t think there’s any evidence that enabling it is detrimental. But I’m happy to be proved wrong with magnified screenshots from a non-retina screen ??

p.s. On your comment:

I need a more reliable method of determining which images are actually being used in my site so that I can delete every other image I have uploaded over the past 6 months. Sounds like I just need to load every page in a cache-empty Firefox to get my answer.

The media library has a column “Uploaded to” which shows if an image is attached to a page or “unattached”. Of the “unattached”s, you have to allow for the logo, favicon, and slider images. Everything else should be fair game for spring-cleaning.

Well, my son proudly showed me his retina MacBook and I couldn’t see any difference. But I’m willing to accept that my old eyes aren’t what they used to be. I did notice a big difference when our TVs went from SD to HD – but I can’t see any further gains since then…at least, not at normal viewing distances, which have to be the benchmark.

Of the “unattached”s, you have to allow for the logo, favicon, and slider images. Everything else should be fair game for spring-cleaning.

That’s the rub though: over 50% of my image detritus is discarded slider images so the method you recommend would be akin to Russian Roulette for me.

Why can’t the media library pick up on attached slider images?

Then I went to my site and browsed some images. I then entered about:cache (it’s Firefox) and looked at what images had been downloaded.

@electricfeet – I’m trying to work out how to do this. I don’t much use Firefox. Where/how do I enter about:cache?

TIA.

In the address bar. ??

Duh! Hey – that’s pretty cool!

Thanks d4z_c0nf. I’m bored with gardening now – back to the voyage of discovery…

Gardening? Leave that to the wife like I do. Trouble is, it would be more healthy in the garden than stuck in front of this screen every day ??

Nobody – but nobody – touches my computer, my car, or my lawnmower.

Btw, I’m very happy with my website today and making time for the garden was proof of that. In other words, I blame you guys for me being cream-crackered tonight.

Public warning: my first Customizr/first WP website may go online this week, after 6 months of community building. I will probably need more help. Please keep your diaries clear. Thank you.

:-))))))

Diary cleared…