File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I need your halp /hr/, I have failed to make a screen grab of the following website: http://lenser.spb.ru/pict2/panoram/pixelart.htm

any tips or maybe Anonymous will deliver?

Pic related
>> Anonymous
Get Flashgot (extension for Firefox). It can save a range of pictures like that site uses.

You'll then have 400 images that make up the whole screen. If you want a single image, you're on your own... I'm sure there's software that'll do it automatically, but I've never had the need for it.
>> Anonymous
Crank your resolution up as high as it goes, maximize the browser, and do a prntscrn. Should only take like 4 or 5 to get it all. Then stitch it together in PS.
>> Anonymous
>>84321
>>84322

You see I have this extension thingy https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1146/ for firefox, but it fails me (some funny java errors )
I will give Flashgot a go, and if that fails I will try doing it manually.
>> Anonymous
Even simpler way to do it.

Go to the page in IE and do File >> Save As and make sure it's set to Webpage complete

probably similar way to do it in Opera...

Firefox is shit, so don't use that
>> Anonymous
have you gone nuts??? ff it 10x better than ie!!! (opera is indeed good, but ff is better), well, will not spend more of my time posting to answer such dumbness..
ps: ff also have a way to save a complete web page , and in the same way you said on ie...
>> Anonymous
MOVE bobba
>> Anonymous
>>84348

Notice how none of the Firefoxers here could come up with the simplest solution?

OMG get a plugin!

OMG pluginz!

Keep it simple, stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>84348
I like how you gave an actual value for comparison (10x) like there's someway to calculate it.
I do like firefox, but mine is overloaded with extensions to the point that IE runs faster. I think my main reason for liking it is because it conforms to html and css conventions, which I follow when making websites.
Ironically most developers use IE for testing since it's still the most used browser :S
Although I think that's the wrong approach. If enough developers follow the standards, then either IE will work with the page anyway or people will have to change.
>> Anonymous
>>84361
simple solution? he asked for a SCREENGRAB. you downloaded the page. now you have a folder with 400 PNGs. wow. what a solution.

oc I can dl the page with ff, he simply didn't ask for that. btw, when trying to save the page with IE, it gave me an error saying some data is missing. talk about simple!

the most simple solution would indeed be the screengrab extension for ff. unfortunately it's still buggy and doesn't work with that page. so noone came up with a real solution until now.

>>84452
and btw, it's IE that doesn't follow the standards. inform yourself before you talk shit.
>> Anonymous
You're all wrong.

Both FF and IE are trash compared to Opera.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html
http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html

With that said...
A real solution? Save the webpage and use image software to batch-process stitch the pictures automatically, you'll have to specify how many rows it is and bam, done. Internet Browsers are not made to do this, image editing software is. There are 20 images per row, go find your software of choice and google it, or just search "image stitching software". It's also useful stuff if your digital camera breaks up large images.
>> Anonymous
>>84487
>>>84452
> and btw, it's IE that doesn't follow the standards. inform yourself before you talk shit.

learn to read...

>>84452
> my main reason for liking [firefox] is because it conforms to html and css conventions
>> farthur
I would just print the page to my 'hardcopy' virtual printer, then save the output image somewhere. http://www.hardcopy.de/hardcopy/english/index.htm
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Done with imagemagick.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>84528
actualy no browser fully complies, Opera is the closest and FF is not far behind
>> Anonymous
>>84560
you win
>> Anonymous
you seriously win...
>> Anonymous
Not all of the specs are worth complying to anyway. CSS is mostly useful but there are parts of HTML/XHTML/ECMAScript that are just off the wall and dumb.

>>84452
Firefox is always slower than IE6, unless it's adware infested. Takes up twice as much memory, loads slower, and renders slower. (Though all 3 have improved a lot since 0.9.) Even Mac IE is noticeably faster than Mac FF on old hardware, so it isn't all the OS boost on Windows.
>> Anonymous
>>84921
Internet Explorer: Mac also followed standards, and had a (incredibly weird) better rendering engine than IE for windows. But MS dropped that on 2001, so it's kinda crap compared to actual browsers. The best browser for old Macs is iCab, that gets compiled to run on OS8.6 and up, giving top standards compliance even to machines that would load the page in years :D
It was also the first browser to pass the Acid test2, but it's in a never ending beta state, so on the site they listed as "the first non beta browser" to pass the test, Safari (and obviously Konqueror, that uses the same engine, less or more) and finally Opera. Actually, even alphas of FF2 won't pass that test.
>> Anonymous
>>84921
IE6 is slower than firefox. Google for benchmarks.
>> Anonymous
>>84921
who cares about performance? I've never experienced anything more than two seconds to load the goddamn browser, and it's not like I have a gaming rig.

Show me a browser with as much customisation options through plugins and maybe I'll listen.
>> Anonymous
>>84932
Show me a browser with as much customisation options through plugins

does it need to be by plug ins? You know, because my Opera is kinda hardcore, i can do almost everything with the mouse. Only things i do with the keyboard are F2 to pop up the url input form, and type inside there. Yes, pop up. Because i took that space wasting thing away. As the tabs and so on, i have the frame only :D
Opera has already a shitload of options. Lots of skins (one more ugly than the other, IMHO) and if you look for them, even plug ins. With a right click i can insert bbcode or html tags in edit boxes. Very cool. The very downside of Opera, is the startup time, especially thinking that it auto saves your browsing session, and restores it next startup. With a bit of history for every tab. Tough it renders pages faster than any other browser... well, not sure about iCab (iCab it's a lot fast), but that's how it looks.
>> Anonymous
>>84936
using the mouse for everything and the keyboard for nothing is a bad thing. the mouse is inefficient and resource intensive compared to the keyboard.
>> Anonymous
>>84944
you know, i notice that too. When i'm encoding HD video or fragging people in Australia with a ms ping, i wonder "gee...i wish my mouse didn't take up so many tens...no...DOZENS of bits of my cpu every damn second"
we should all use keyboards. They are especially useful as i can tab my way to the bottom of a page instead of sloppily scrolling down with a wheel. And with tabs, the best part is i can get to the bottom so fast i'm at the top again!
>> Anonymous
>>84947
Your keyboard has an up arrow and down arrow for smooth scrolling, as well as a page up key and page down key for faster scrolling. Learn to use them, operafag.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>84950
Wait. I am>>84936and>>84926only.
And trust me, using the mouse only it's faster. Right click+ moving mouse down and finally right, close tab. up stops loading. down makes new tab.up down reloads. left gets back. right goes next page. wheel and i change tab. Also, having a veeeery exagearte mouse for a normal use, i get to have 8 buttons (MX1000) customized. Click, right click, duoble click fast up fast down, page back, page forward and finally F9. So basically i can do everything in Opera, using a single hand, and doing movements in the order of the 3-4cm max. Moreover to do the same things with a keyboad, i'll need to use key combinations. Tough i admit that when there isn't a graphic interface using the keyboard is better. After all i use irssi to idle in IRC.

PS: as you might have noticed i really have no interface. So i don't go clicking around buttons or menus, that would be really slow indeed. Icons on top right are unrelated (chat status, iScrobbler)
>> Anonymous
I'm honestly surprised this post is still alive three days later (I'm the first reply).