Some technical insight (but not an easy solution):
When one has Flash disabled:
- Open the page in Firefox with Firebug installed, or in a WebKit based browser such as Safari or Chrome, or in IE8.
- Right-click somewhere in the page and choose something like "Inspect element".
- Enable the "Resources" or "Net" tab.
- Click the zoom icon.
In the updated Resources tab, you will now see that your browser actually requests files like media.restorationhardware.com/is/image/rhis/prod1618051?$ev$
However, these are still not the full-size images as used in the Flash component. Using Wireshark, one can see that tiles are requested while scrolling or zooming.
Like for http://media.restorationhardware.com/is/image/rhis/prod1618051 you will see tiles such as http://media.restorationhardware.com/is/image/rhis/prod1618051?req=tile&id=3UP-z-23gMQL0_Rw7yMXDF&scl=1&rect=256,512,256,256&fmt=swf being requested, and also meta data such as http://media.restorationhardware.com/is/image/rhis/prod1618051?req=ctx
You can also use fmt=png
, and change the values for scl
and rect
. The latter is two values for the top-left coordinate, and another two for the width and height (maximum sizes are returned when using ?req=ctx
). Like rect=0,0,1024,1024
gets you a tile for the upper-left corner. For scl
the smaller the value, the higher the resolution. It seems that id
is not required. Still then, this is a lot of trial and error:
(Hence, for your example: right-click a low resolution image, choose Open in new window, and replace the ?$av_sm$
suffix with ?$ev$
, or for larger tiles, with the whole ?req=tile...
suffix instead.)
I have included links to some images to help explain what I mean better: http://img814.imageshack.us/i/20101227190322.jpg/ http://img266.imageshack.us/i/20101227190814.jpg/
– shopkeeper – 2010-12-27T19:31:36.327Most companies that put its images in a flash file do so to prevent or make it harder steal or use its images. For example MLB.com does. I am not saying that the example site you listed did this for the same reason. Instead, It could be because it works or looks better with overall design of its site. – SgtOJ – 2010-12-27T19:51:48.017
Thank you for your reply Brian. I sincerly appreciate the piracy issue that you mention. The photos are of a very good quality and so excellent for reference purposes. I didn't have an intention to use them for any financial gain. I could spend a day or so going through the tedious process of capturing the images manually but I was hoping to grab the larger and higher resolution image as is viewable by zooming and panning in the pop-up window, without having to resort to photoshop as I have done here : http://img211.imageshack.us/i/20101227195719.jpg/
– shopkeeper – 2010-12-27T20:26:16.067(Not sure if you're warned about revised answers, so here's a ping: I edited mine again.) – Arjan – 2010-12-27T22:52:40.313
This seems to be using Adobe Scene 7 Image Server.
– Arjan – 2010-12-27T23:00:57.450