Making images full screen

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

Without specifying specifically the device's resolution? I don't think so.

Even then to escape Kobo's page margin on RMDSK takes enabling full screen mode which requires editing a config file and a checkbox in settings.

You don't need to know the resolution. But you'd be best to use high-res images. ePub supports % for images and you can use an SVG container if you prefer.

There is the footer and you can have the image fill the screen except for the footer. All Readers have a footer to show the page number or location.

[salamanderjuice]

If you have a footer you're not filling the page.

You can display images like that on kindle too, to fill up to all the margins.

In a fixed layout book it's possible to completely fill the page. No margins, no header and footer. Just an image filling the screen.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

If you have a footer you're not filling the page.

You can display images like that on kindle too, to fill up to all the margins.

In a fixed layout book it's possible to completely fill the page. No margins, no header and footer. Just an image filling the screen.

But with a Kindle, you have forced margins on the left/right. With an RMDSK based Reader, you don't have left/right margins by default. And if you want reflowable, you have to just deal with the fact that there's a footer.

[BetterRed]

With what has this thread got to do with Sigil I ask, would have thought it belongs in Ebook Format Workshop forum.

BR

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

If you have a footer you're not filling the page.

You can display images like that on kindle too, to fill up to all the margins.

In a fixed layout book it's possible to completely fill the page. No margins, no header and footer. Just an image filling the screen.

Yes, but the truth is, it's much ado about nothing. If someone is creating a kids' book, or a coffee table book, they'll use FXL, and the discussion is over. If they're making a reflowable, it's not like the images are reduced, beyond the scope of the reading page; they're the same width/height as text for the same book/page. If the READER is interested enough in the image to want to see more of it, or see it larger, s/he can tap it. That's hardly back-breaking work.

Yes, yes, I understand that the ability to embed images full-screen, sans margins, would emulate "full bleed" in print, but in print, the end user can't zoom the bloody image. S/he can, in eBooks. And if s/he is adequately interested, s/he WILL.

So, as I said: much ado about nothing. As is inherently designed into the concept and execution of eReading devices, the choice and options are up to the person reading the book. As the image(s) can be embedded much larger than the screen--unlike print, again--the reader can be as interested (and thus zoom away to her heart's content) or not as s/he sees fit.

Hitch

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, but the truth is, it's much ado about nothing. If someone is creating a kids' book, or a coffee table book, they'll use FXL, and the discussion is over. If they're making a reflowable, it's not like the images are reduced, beyond the scope of the reading page; they're the same width/height as text for the same book/page. If the READER is interested enough in the image to want to see more of it, or see it larger, s/he can tap it. That's hardly back-breaking work.

Yes, yes, I understand that the ability to embed images full-screen, sans margins, would emulate "full bleed" in print, but in print, the end user can't zoom the bloody image. S/he can, in eBooks. And if s/he is adequately interested, s/he WILL.

So, as I said: much ado about nothing. As is inherently designed into the concept and execution of eReading devices, the choice and options are up to the person reading the book. As the image(s) can be embedded much larger than the screen--unlike print, again--the reader can be as interested (and thus zoom away to her heart's content) or not as s/he sees fit.

Hitch

It's not a great experience IMO, and there's plenty of illustrated chapter books for kids with full bleed images where the majority of the text being reflowable makes perfect sense. Plus not all readers support zoom in the first place, nor is zooming ever a great experience on eInk devices.

Of course it's not a "huge" issue. But it's crappy especially when the paper book has a full bleed two page spread and the eBook has a one page postage stamp of white borders.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

Plus not all readers support zoom in the first place, nor is zooming ever a great experience on eInk devices.

But surely it would be supported on the majority of the readers of those for whom imagery is important, no? In my opinion, the problem usually takes care of itself. Those who primarily read text-only novels or text-only non-fiction favor eink (or not; I read novels on a tablet for instance). Those who want to see full-color imagery and/or multi-media favor tablets with various reading apps installed--where pan & zoom is fairly instinctual (or they get a larger tablet so they don't have to zoom as much). Those who do a little of both, have multiple devices.

I think too much time is wasted on trying to present images in exactly the way that the book's creator wants them to be seen. It makes more sense to me to trust that the user to whom those images will be important will already be looking at them on an appropriate device, with an app that fulfills their image-viewing needs. The rest will be clicking/tapping to the next page regardless of how big and glorious an image's presentation might be. Just make sure an image of sufficient quality is present for them to manipulate. They'll have figured out the rest already themselves.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But surely it would be supported on the majority of the readers of those for whom imagery is important, no? In my opinion, the problem usually takes care of itself. Those who primarily read text-only novels or text-only non-fiction favor eink (or not; I read novels on a tablet for instance). Those who want to see full-color imagery and/or multi-media favor tablets with various reading apps installed--where pan & zoom is fairly instinctual (or they get a larger tablet so they don't have to zoom as much). Those who do a little of both, have multiple devices.

I think too much time is wasted on trying to present images in exactly the way that the book's creator wants them to be seen. It makes more sense to me to trust that the user to whom those images will be important will already be looking at them on an appropriate device, with an app that fulfills their image-viewing needs. The rest will be clicking/tapping to the next page regardless of how big and glorious an image's presentation might be. Just make sure an image of sufficient quality is present for them to manipulate. They'll have figured out the rest already themselves.

^ This. Exactly this.

If the author, er, publisher is so intent on insisting that the reader see his graphic the way it's "meant to be seen," then s/he can make the book FXL. And, yes, that will cause other ramifications. But thus it ever is, in publishing. The more color pages you have, in print, the greater your printing cost, the more you have to charge for the book, each increase further reducing the potential ROI (return on investment).

ALL of publishing is a compromise. ALL of it. It is no different now, and honestly, with 3500 eBooks under our belts, I don't recall the last time that I even noticed that "OMG, there's a margin here!" To me, it's a grossly--grossly--overemphasized "issue."

I'd further point out that if the book is reflowable, most images are flowing, in the text. They're coming along, beneath paragraph X and above paragraph Y. Sure, you could put page breaks, before, to ensure that the image shows up, full-screen (so to speak), but then what? Then you typically have fugly gaps, on the bottom of page x. As I said--it's all compromise, whether you are doing print or digital, and..that's just how it is.

You want to see a book that doesn't sell? That loses money? I'll show you book after book where the author or author/illustrator insisted on "full creative control." THOSE books invariably and inevitably lose money--because the Creative overrides the publisher's sense of what people WANT, what they'll pay for. And yes, maybe I'm too focused on the commercial aspects (if there is such a thing)--but again, that's what publishing IS. It's a business. It's not a happy-happy-joy-joy place where all the creatives get to dance in the moonlight with the effing fairies. It's a business, and whether we're talking print or digital, compromises will always be with us. In this instance, Kindles have margins. That's the reality.

Spoiler:

Sorry, my friends--I'm just up to HERE with publishers this week. Hell, this year. I swear, truly, they get worse by the day, and I know, I do, that it's affecting my attitude. Mea culpa, but I stand by what I said here, cranky or not.

Hitch

[JSWolf]

You can only do what the device allows you to do. Don't try to do things the device doesn't do well or is a bad idea to do. Going fixed layout just to get rid of the side margins is a really stupid idea. Don't do it. ePub based Readers using RMDSk only have a bottom margin to deal with for full screen images. Those are the limitations and you just have to deal.

The problem is that the people in charge of the reading standards really screwed up. They should have made it so the reading software knew how to handle screens. The software should know the screen size & resolution and the reading software should allow a lot more control over what's on screen than it does.

[Notjohn]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think too much time is wasted on trying to present images in exactly the way that the book's creator wants them to be seen.

Not to mention poems.

And fonts!

And BOOKS!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

And fonts!

The main problem with trying to reproduce the look of the printed version by using the same fonts doesn't work in most cases. In most cases, the fonts used don't work for eBooks. The fonts are too light for eInk screens. And thus, they can cause eye strain or just be harder to read.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

Not to mention poems.

And fonts!

And BOOKS!

Poems, now, dem is tricky stuffs. Especially "visual poetry," god save me. Nothing against the poets, but, MAN!!! Try to adopt/adapt new tech, wouldja? If you're going to be whatever the new Beat Generation is, get with the program.

You know, nj, that I disagree with you, utterly, about fonts. I simply feel that nothing--nothing--makes a book feel like a BOOK like fonts. With an eBook, I can't pick it up. I can't fan the pages, and smell the ink, the paper. I can't run my fingertips over the subtle impressions of the letters, on the page, feel the smoothness of the paper. I can't smell the binding glue. I get no tactile reinforcement that I'm looking at, or reading, a book.

But with a subtle and tasteful use of fonts, I can give you the eyball-joy of a book. What else can do that, in our digital world?

And more importantly, Padawan Apprentice...I can make your LITB sit up and take notice. ;-)

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The main problem with trying to reproduce the look of the printed version by using the same fonts doesn't work in most cases. In most cases, the fonts used don't work for eBooks. The fonts are too light for eInk screens. And thus, they can cause eye strain or just be harder to read.

Indeed. if you embed AGaramond, you are going to hell, where Satan will set you up with the eyesight of a middle-aged or older person, and eternity of embedded Garamond. It's brutal.

But Garamond is a lovely, lovely font for reading. It is, There are ways around this--using some of its cousins in the Adobe family, for example Caslon or Janson or others--but these things take TIME and effort to do well. Most commercial firms, certainly in our meager price range, can't be bothered. I can't live without bothering. ;-)

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

But with a subtle and tasteful use of fonts, I can give you the eyball-joy of a book. What else can do that, in our digital world?

And more importantly, Padawan Apprentice...I can make your LITB sit up and take notice. ;-)

I took the first Harry Potter eBook and modified it to use the same fonts that are in the American Print version. I'm not sure if I used the same main font or not, but the other fonts are either the same or similar enough. It looks good..

Indeed. if you embed AGaramond, you are going to hell, where Satan will set you up with the eyesight of a middle-aged or older person, and eternity of embedded Garamond. It's brutal.

But Garamond is a lovely, lovely font for reading. It is, There are ways around this--using some of its cousins in the Adobe family, for example Caslon or Janson or others--but these things take TIME and effort to do well. Most commercial firms, certainly in our meager price range, can't be bothered. I can't live without bothering. ;-)

What could be done to maybe use Adobe Garamond is to embed the semibold version. At least that would look better due to more weight.

Another really good font is Monotype Baskerville eText.

<--click the link

The problem (as I see it) is that publishers try to duplicate the pBook and it doesn't always work. They use fonts that don't translate well to an eInk screen. The worst book I've ever seen is The Martian. They chose to embed Free Serif, Free Sans, and Free Mono. Those fonts are way way too light and they are plain awful fonts. If I was unable to dump the fonts, there is no way I would be able to read it.

Can you point me to some eBooks that actually do a good job with embedded fonts?

[DiapDealer]

I must be missing some sort of font gene that everyone else has. Because unless it's Wingdings, or something similarly stupid, I just don't notice them all that much--print OR digital. I see big/small, bold, italic and regular (and monspace) typeface, but that's about it. When people start talking ascenders/descenders, kerning pairs, serif, etc... my eyes just glaze over. Props to those who jump in and wallow around with them and wrassle 'em into something pretty that my eyes can slide right past, but I just don't get it. It's always been the words I'm in it for, not the ink.

[BetterRed]

I've bought quite a few printed books solely because of their physical aesthetics - layout, construction, paper characteristics, font usage, etc - sometimes as gifts. Not fictional or coffee table, mostly history, memoirs, bios etc. Some from French publishers; a couple from the Jewish Heritage Museum in NY.

I cannot imagine buying an e-book solely because of the aesthetics of its electronic attributes.

BR