(This is with DavidStatue.stl) The item pictured is vertical, so the thumbnails should be portrait, but they're 4:3 landscapes, which is a bit irritating. Could they instead respect the item being pictured (in its default orientation)?
I was just mucking around with this, and a friend made an accurate observation that, if we have the thumbnail for e.g. a 1x100 aspect object, be a 1x100 thumbnail (or maybe with some padding, 3x102 or whatever), then when a user rotates in the viewer, they will only see 3/100 of the object. We could fix this by using the entire bounding box, and setting it to a square-ish thumbnail with the greatest dimension setting the value, but square aspect rations tend to squash the object a bit (compared to e.g. Thingiverse's rendering). However, if we only did it to the viewer (i.e. not to the thumbnail), we would see a significant visual jump as the viewer loads in Media Viewer.
So, long story short, I think this problem can get fixed with a whole new tool, but I don't think we should necessarily fix it now...
But the user can't rotate the viewer for the thumbnail, which is static? The interactive window dimensions are the browser window's dimenions in MediaViewer, and that's the only interactive view, right? Or am I missing something?
Correct, but as above, if the thumbnail has a different aspect ratio from the viewer, there will be a significant visual jump...though I suppose I could try and see if it affects anything. I expect there may also be a problem with the rotation not being perfectly aligned with one axis or another (so the thumbnail will also potentially cut out bits of the object) but it may be unfounded. Ugh, I will try investigating. I'd almost rather not have the viewer and thumbnail codes diverge so much (as the dimension/view code is basically identical right now), but if this is a big deal then I can.