enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. I keep trying to change the size of my image with css by adding a width and height attribute. However, this only changes the zoom of the picture. For example, I have a 90px by 90px image. However, when I change the width and height, it's like a zoomed in version of the pic instead of a smaller pic. my css is:

  3. You can set the image as the background to a div, and then use the CSS background-size property: background-size: cover; It will "Scale the background image to be as large as possible so that the background area is completely covered by the background image.

  4. This approach is different than setecs answer, using this the image area will be constant and defined by you (leaving empty spaces either horizontally or vertically depending on the div size and image aspect ratio), while setecs answer will get you a box that exactly the size of the scaled image (without empty spaces).

  5. However, when I change the CSS code to, max-height: 150px; max-width: 200px; width: 120px; height: 120px; I get images that are all the same size, but the aspect ratio is stretched, ruining the images. Is there not a way to resize the image container and not the image instead? Allowing me to keep the aspect ratio, but resize the image still.

  6. Specific to the question, use a 1x1 placeholder to maintain the div's square ratio, with a background image using background-size to maintain the photo's aspect ratio. I used background-position: center center; so the photo will be centered in the div. (Aligning the photo in the vertical center or bottom would get ugly with the photo in the img ...

  7. How to Scale Down a Large Image Using HTML and/or CSS

    stackoverflow.com/questions/22386346

    Correct. It's much better practice to specify the size of any image containers on a page as it will allow the browser to continue rendering the rest of the page and draw the image into that area when the resource is available as opposed to forcing the browser to infer the size after downloading the resource and re-rendering the entire page but as far as CSS vs HTML, it shouldn't make a difference.

  8. I have an image, and I want to set it a specific width and height (in pixels) But If I set width and height using css (width:150px; height:100px), image will be stretched, and It may be ugly. How to Fill images to a specific size using CSS, and not stretching it? Example of fill and stretching image: Original Image: Stretched Image: Filled Image:

  9. Setting max-width to 100% and height to auto did nothing for me - I indeed worked with a container. Wrap the image in a div, set the max height/width, and let the image (#div img {}) be width 100% and height 100%. –

  10. Not that kind of space. The images still have the same bounds, width, height in document, only they "look" 2 times smaller. Imagine - an image with size 100x100. Then you apply scale(0.5), and it is the same as image 50x50, but with invisible 25px borders on both sides. The image still would take up the 100x100 space. – –

  11. CSS 3 introduces the background-size property, but support is not universal. Having the browser resize the image is inefficient though, the large image still has to be downloaded. You should resize it server side (caching the result) and use that instead.