We apologize for the instability of composr.app and appreciate your patience. We are working on the statistics addon and trying to find an optimal way to store and render data. Unfortunately, we have yet to find a solution that can handle the traffic (and therefore, tens of millions of statistical records) of composr.app. We're working hard on one.
I looked into it, and you're right, but it's for a reason.
The 168_168_* one represents a thumbnailed image
The other one represented a scaled-down image.
This is a very subtle thing. The thumbnailed image may be bigger, if the source image was smaller than the thumbnail size. This is because thumbnails have to be uniform. The scaled-down image is more appropriate for normal rendering of a field where you just want a maximum size, but never to get blown up to a minimum size.
Composr allows you to reference either in your templates.
You may ask why not just generate the thumbnail one on demand, as it's not used by default. I asked myself the same thing. It's because Composr is pulling in the thumbnailing templating too, which needs the image to be pre-generated.
I would have seen a difference if my image was smaller than the thumbnail created, so I do understand the reason for 2 images now you've explained it. I just saw the exact same dimensions in both and thought it was a duplication bug.
Why is it pulling in thumbnailing templating if it's not using the pre-generated thumbnail though? Isn't this something that should happen if you are referencing a thumbnail rather than the default scaled-down image? Maybe not, but it seems like a valid question in my mind (which doesn't comprehend how everything works in Composr like yours does).
Extra parameters are passed into catalogue templates in case you want a non-default layout and the default way fields are rendered are not sufficient to build that. Thumbnails would be a common thing people would want to include in their custom layout.
I looked into it, and you're right, but it's for a reason.
The 168_168_* one represents a thumbnailed image
The other one represented a scaled-down image.
This is a very subtle thing. The thumbnailed image may be bigger, if the source image was smaller than the thumbnail size. This is because thumbnails have to be uniform. The scaled-down image is more appropriate for normal rendering of a field where you just want a maximum size, but never to get blown up to a minimum size.
Composr allows you to reference either in your templates.
You may ask why not just generate the thumbnail one on demand, as it's not used by default. I asked myself the same thing. It's because Composr is pulling in the thumbnailing templating too, which needs the image to be pre-generated.
Why is it pulling in thumbnailing templating if it's not using the pre-generated thumbnail though? Isn't this something that should happen if you are referencing a thumbnail rather than the default scaled-down image? Maybe not, but it seems like a valid question in my mind (which doesn't comprehend how everything works in Composr like yours does).