How to scroll two frames at once?

[Tom21]

Please answer. I am searching for it so long. Meybe you will be able to tell
me what JS I have to include.

I know that there are two versions of such script, fo IE and Navigator.

Thanks for any answer or source of info.

[Stephen Chalmers]

Tom21 <bo*******@poczta.fm> wrote in message
news:d5**********@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...

Please answer. I am searching for it so long. Meybe you will be able to tell me what JS I have to include.

I know that there are two versions of such script, fo IE and Navigator.

Thanks for any answer or source of info.

You need to specify exactly what you need.
Do you want a master-slave system or dual master?
Also do you require the scrolling to be proportional to the relative page
lengths or pixel for pixel over the range of the shortest page?
--
Stephen Chalmers
01000101011101100110010101110010001000000110001001 100101
01100101011011100010000001101000011000010110010000 111111
00100000001110100010110100101001

[Stephen Chalmers]

Stephen Chalmers <ig******@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42**********@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

Tom21 <bo*******@poczta.fm> wrote in message
news:d5**********@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...

Please answer. I am searching for it so long. Meybe you will be able to

tell

me what JS I have to include.

I know that there are two versions of such script, fo IE and Navigator.

Thanks for any answer or source of info.

See my reply to your later post(s)
--
Stephen Chalmers

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Tom21 wrote:

[nothing substantial]

You don't as you don't really need it.
PointedEars
--
__
2||i
e shows the beauty of mathematics.
-- Prof. Dr. rer. nat. habil. Dr.h.c. Hansjoachim Walther (1939-2005)

[Stephen Chalmers]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote in message
news:25****************@PointedEars.de...

Tom21 wrote:

[nothing substantial]

You don't as you don't really need it.

That could be said of much that gets requested here, but that doesn't mean
people aren't gratified by it.

http://www.hotspot.freeserve.co.uk/mutual/

--
Stephen Chalmers
547265617375726520627572696564206174204F2E532E2072 65663A205451323437393134

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Stephen Chalmers wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote [...]

Tom21 wrote:

> [nothing substantial]

You don't as you don't really need it.

That could be said of much that gets requested here, but that doesn't
mean people aren't gratified by it.

I doubt that people are gratified by stuff that does not work.
If you want rows that align when scrolled, use tables. If you
want independent viewports, use frames. Anything else does
not really work.
PointedEars
--
In the First World War, 13 million people were killed. In the Second
World War, 40 million people were killed. I think that if a third war
takes place, nothing is going to be left on the face of earth.
-- Shakira, 2003-02-05 @ MTV.com

[news]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Stephen Chalmers wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote [...]

Tom21 wrote:
> [nothing substantial]

You don't as you don't really need it.

That could be said of much that gets requested here, but that doesn't mean people aren't gratified by it.

I doubt that people are gratified by stuff that does not work.
If you want rows that align when scrolled, use tables. If you
want independent viewports, use frames. Anything else does
not really work.

So if, as I did, you need to show the various versions of a 6000 pixel
image side by side so we can compare the changes having frames that
scroll and pan together would be completely unnecessary would it?

Just because you can't thing of a use for something, don't just dismiss
it.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

ne**@chthonic.f9.co.uk wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Stephen Chalmers wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> wrote [...]
>> Tom21 wrote:
>> > [nothing substantial]
>> You don't as you don't really need it.
> That could be said of much that gets requested here, but that
> doesn't mean people aren't gratified by it. I doubt that people are gratified by stuff that does not work. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you want rows that align when scrolled, use tables. If you
want independent viewports, use frames. Anything else does
not really work.

So if, as I did, you need to show the various versions of a 6000 pixel
image side by side so we can compare the changes having frames that
scroll and pan together would be completely unnecessary would it?

You must be kidding. Of course it would, especially it would not serve
purpose to a *person*; considering that comparing one pair of pixels
with the naked eye takes more than 250 ms, how long do you think 6000
pairs of pixels will take (provided that you don't mean a 6000x6000
pixel image in which case your argument would be rendered ridiculous)?

But my argument was that it does not (really) work, not that it would be
unnecessary (although that is another valid argument: it is indeed a
waste of time, see below).
Just because you can't thing of a use for something, don't just dismiss
it.

There are far more efficient and reliable ways to compare images,
but they would be beyond the scope of client-side scripting.
PointedEars
--
Germany is the birth place of psychiatry. Psychs feel threatened by
Scientology as they are crazy. Many psychs become psychs to heal their own
mental problems and to control others. -- "The only real Barbara Schwarz",
dsw.scientology, <16**************************@posting.google.com >

[news]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

ne**@chthonic.f9.co.uk wrote:

So if, as I did, you need to show the various versions of a 6000 pixel image side by side so we can compare the changes having frames that scroll and pan together would be completely unnecessary would it?
You must be kidding. Of course it would, especially it would not

serve purpose to a *person*; considering that comparing one pair of pixels
with the naked eye takes more than 250 ms, how long do you think 6000
pairs of pixels will take (provided that you don't mean a 6000x6000
pixel image in which case your argument would be rendered ridiculous)?
I do mean 6000x6000 (well 6000x4000 usually). But I don't mean compare
to find which pixels changed ... it's more subjective than that: we
wanted to be able to see larger scale changes.

There are far more efficient and reliable ways to compare images,
but they would be beyond the scope of client-side scripting.

The day you can write software to tell us which image is of a
building with a canopy over the entrance and which has had that
canopy lowered 2m, you've got a job :)

I came across a bit grumpy earlier. Sorry for that, I was, well,
a bit grumpy...

[Paul Cooper]

On 18 May 2005 07:53:00 -0700, ne**@chthonic.f9.co.uk wrote:

The day you can write software to tell us which image is of a
building with a canopy over the entrance and which has had that
canopy lowered 2m, you've got a job :)

I came across a bit grumpy earlier. Sorry for that, I was, well,
a bit grumpy...

Well, I am afraid I can't give you chapter and verse, but machine
vision techniques are well up to this kind of change detection - they
are used in all sorts of ways, from policing the London congestion
charging area up! It's not my field, but certainly as gross a change
as you describe would be pretty easy meat for them. However, I will
agree that in a varied environment where the lighting changes, the
mark one eyeball can be as quick and cheap as anything! You might be
able to do a simple gross change detection that would pick out the
pairs to look at though - something along the lines of a local
histogram equalize followed by differncing the images, then running
some statistics to determine how much the images were different.....

Paul

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

ne**@chthonic.f9.co.uk wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

ne**@chthonic.f9.co.uk wrote:

> So if, as I did, you need to show the various versions of a 6000 pixel ^^^^^^^
Eeek. Could you please either stop posting using Google Groups or
reformat quotes manually before submit?

[Quotes repaired]

> image side by side so we can compare the changes having frames that
> scroll and pan together would be completely unnecessary would it?

You must be kidding. Of course it would, especially it would not
serve purpose to a *person*; considering that comparing one pair of
pixels with the naked eye takes more than 250 ms, how long do you think
6000 pairs of pixels will take (provided that you don't mean a 6000x6000
pixel image in which case your argument would be rendered
ridiculous)?

I do mean 6000x6000 (well 6000x4000 usually).

Great core dump! Scrolling one of such an image will be a pain in several
recent user agents and crash the rest. And now you want to scroll *two* of
them via client-side script ...
But I don't mean compare to find which pixels changed ... it's more
subjective than that: we wanted to be able to see larger scale changes.
That would be pixel value differences, yes?

There are far more efficient and reliable ways to compare images,
but they would be beyond the scope of client-side scripting.

The day you can write software to tell us which image is of a
building with a canopy over the entrance and which has had that
canopy lowered 2m, you've got a job :)

Well, have the objects been photographed under the same angle, at
almost the same daytime (hence the same lighting) and from the same
distance (hence the same relative size)? Then such software already
exists, I do not have to write it.
I came across a bit grumpy earlier. Sorry for that, I was, well,
a bit grumpy...

ACK
PointedEars