[Suggestion/help to find] Scaling of images in BBCode

[damorgue]

BBCode specifies this to be the way to scale images, but it doesn't seem work. I can't seem to get it to work at least.

Full version: [img width={width} height={height} ...]{url}[/img]
Another variant (shorthand): [img={width}x{height}]{url}[/img]

I have had issues with it in the past but where I ended up just scaling the images down and reuploading them. That just isn't efficient, doesn't allow to click to enlarge and takes some time with larger number of pictures.

How does the tags for this work? Have this function been removed, because on the side it says that:
BBCode is ON
and
[img] is ON


webwit?

[webwit]

phpBB doesn't do that, although there probably is a mod.

[damorgue]

Then I'd like to officially request it.

Edit: I think it is an easily motivated feature, it can make threads less cluttered, while still allowing for larger images if someone wants to enlarge it and look at some details. Unlike spoiler where the images are hidden, it can also provide a good overview using small thumbnails.

[Muirium]

Personally, I truly loathe thumbnails, javascript zoom tricks, funny borders and so on. The current image layout on DT (scaled down to horizontal width, click to load separately at full size) is one of my favourite things about this forum's superb, clean visual style. People can make a whole lot of ugly with tags like that. And do.

[Daniel Beardsmore]

Nah, phpBB's approach is pretty horrible. You get scroll position jumping as images load, as it's too stupid to supply image width and height beforehand — I don't think any punishment is too severe for the perpetrators of this. Images don't respond to middle-click, so you can find yourself hurtling around the page when middle-click and mouse move puts you in cursor scroll mode. Pages with lots of images trigger a massive amount of JPEG decoding at once, causing CPU drain and browser unresponsiveness. It's not the most stupid way to do images, but it's fairly dumb. Since you're forced to view images in a new window anyway, you may as well put thumbnails on the page.

[Muirium]

The current "thumbnails" are actually full resolution on a retina display. I often browse with the site zoomed to the main text column width, and they look good and sharp. Thumbnails are just a pain in the arse when doing that.

[7bit]

Would be great to have an image quality analyzer which scales the image down until it looks acceptable, so I don't have to look at a grainy background which appears to be just a little section of the actual image.

[webwit]

I've relayed your wishes to our internal phpBB custom development department. Due to prior lack of success, they have recently switched to the scrum methodology. Sticky notes have been added to the "corner of hope" section of the board.