Flip Flop Flying

Ten new Minipops

with 13 comments

I’ve often chuckled to myself when people have said in emails that the Minipops are too small. That’s the idea, dummy! But I now feel a bit bad about that. When I was looking at the Minipops page a couple of days ago after doing the Obama one, I realised that, as monitor display sizes get bigger, Minipops start to look even smaller on the screen. When I first started doing Minipops, my monitor was 1024×768; now it’s 1440×900. And I’m wondering if I should double the size of them, so that they’re easier to see. It’s an arduous task changing 980 HTML documents, but it may well be needed. Or will that destroy the magic… Ho hum, I dunno. What do you think?

Anyway, there’s ten new Minipops on the page today. Apart from two of them, I’ve kinda ignored your suggestions, but I do have them saved to refer to for the next batch. So, today there’s the two fellas off “Fantasy Island”; rapper Lil Wayne; Seasick Steve, who I keep thinking is called Seasick Dave; and the Fifth Dragon King of Bhutan, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. Plus a bunch of political figures: Iranian president and current holder of the handsomest world leader title, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; Venezuelan human cannonball, Hugo Chávez; Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva; Bolivian president Evo Morales; and the prime minister of Russia Vladimir Putin sporting the truly macho-er than macho topless-with-combat-trousers look; and Sean Penn lookalike Harvey Milk (can you guess which film I saw at the cinema last night?).

Written by Craig

March 4th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

13 Responses to 'Ten new Minipops'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Ten new Minipops'.

  1. I’ll jump on the double train.

    They hold up well at any size, but the extra pixels sure do help.

    glass

    4 Mar 09 at 10:47 pm

  2. I second glass. It does make a dramatic difference.

    b

    Anonymous

    4 Mar 09 at 11:00 pm

  3. Where is Claire’s minipop? Or better yet, a Las Vegas Craig and Claire wedding minipop please.

    lisa

    5 Mar 09 at 5:00 am

  4. nah, leave them small, they are more fun. Seasick Dave is excellent and I will now always think of him as Dave.

    I’d like to see Caesar Milan with a pack of dogs as he is my new hero.

    Natalie

    5 Mar 09 at 8:44 am

  5. I think you should keep them small because they have always been small.
    If people want to see them large they can (full-page) zoom in Firefox 3, Opera, Safari 4 or even IE7 and see them large and crisp.

    Lance Crossfire

    5 Mar 09 at 10:18 am

  6. Ah, I see the actual GIFs on the Minipops page don’t stay crisp at full page zoom, they look a little fuzzy.

    I still think you should leave them small.

    People could always open them in any image editor to see them large.

    Lance Crossfire

    5 Mar 09 at 10:28 am

  7. Larger is cool.

    I like seeing the individual pixels, like on the cover of the Fun, Fun, Fun book.

    matt

    5 Mar 09 at 3:21 pm

  8. This Dummy prefers you make them larger. I already told you that I can’t see them at all. (I could tell Putin was topless, though not who he was…) I know you won’t do it, but thanks for asking. ~B~

    ~Barbara~

    5 Mar 09 at 3:34 pm

  9. If you rescale the minipops – then you have also choose a larger format for the next minipop book. Poor trees :-)

    Jo

    5 Mar 09 at 5:10 pm

  10. I second Lance Crossfire. Educate the masses in the ways of Cmd+plus (or Ctrl+plus for the less fortunate)

    Heather

    6 Mar 09 at 12:41 am

  11. …although if you did decide to embiggen them, capitalise on your internet fame & get 100 of your twitter followers to do 10 each.

    (Just changed my screen res to 800×600, and I have to admit, the minipops look pretty sweet)

    Heather

    6 Mar 09 at 12:50 am

  12. I want everything – minipops, pops, and family-sized pops.

    Marc Snyder

    6 Mar 09 at 11:20 am

  13. my 2 cents: I’d like to see them a bit bigger. The tallest ones in this post show up on my monitor as about 1/2 inch tall, the smallest is 1/4 inch. I love the detail, which gets lost when they’re displayed so small. :( I have adjusted my display resolution, but it doesn’t effect the images, just the text. ?? If there was a way to see larger sizes, it would be cool. But that’s just me. :)

    giddy girlie

    20 Mar 09 at 10:24 am

Leave a Reply