2 meg images files are completely unnecessary for browser/screen display. That's the point.
Sure, if you want to print from them or maybe project them HD or something. But for casual viewing on the web? Silly. 80K tops for this forum.
I used to shoot a 102 megapixel camera every day at work. The files were huge. But they worked for their intended purpose - fine art printing. Not web friendly, obviously. I always supplied the artists with web ready files as well as the raw image. They are not the same thing - not the same use.
We must remember our audience.
Sure, if you want to print from them or maybe project them HD or something. But for casual viewing on the web? Silly. 80K tops for this forum.
I used to shoot a 102 megapixel camera every day at work. The files were huge. But they worked for their intended purpose - fine art printing. Not web friendly, obviously. I always supplied the artists with web ready files as well as the raw image. They are not the same thing - not the same use.
We must remember our audience.
Most members would object to that... robbing them the opportunity to have images appear in threads.
dave
I agree - 150kb is surely sufficient. If people are too lazy to download some free software to do the job (Paint.net, GIMP, etc) that should be their problem, not mine. Here in Australia we still have quite restrictive download quota's, and I often find myself having to set the browser to not download images at all, or the forums become too data intensive.
Of course, the problem could easily be solved by having the forum generate a 10kb clickable thumbnail, instead of the absurdly stupid "download the giant image and then make it look small" method used now.
Of course, the problem could easily be solved by having the forum generate a 10kb clickable thumbnail, instead of the absurdly stupid "download the giant image and then make it look small" method used now.
It's easier to shrink before posting, but all the resolution is lost.
I've come across many a small, unreadable pic on here and tried
to blow it up and just get giant pixel blobs!
Allow larger high res pics.
We seem to all care about higher audio resolution, but then we
want to turn the video resolution of the forum to equiv. of 2 channel
32kb/s mp3's?
I like the feature where the smaller thumbed pics would be visible
in the thread, but you can click to get full size.
I really need full size for some items of interest.
I've come across many a small, unreadable pic on here and tried
to blow it up and just get giant pixel blobs!
Allow larger high res pics.
We seem to all care about higher audio resolution, but then we
want to turn the video resolution of the forum to equiv. of 2 channel
32kb/s mp3's?
I like the feature where the smaller thumbed pics would be visible
in the thread, but you can click to get full size.
I really need full size for some items of interest.
Last edited:
you are deliberately misquoting me to make me look like the criminal.
I said limit the size of the pics.
I said I want to see the pics.
I said I want the choice of which pics to download.
I did not say ban pics.
You have said that.
Nobody said "force lower resolution". We said "limit maximum size, or at least prevent the large version downloading automatically". Sure, recompressing a JPEG will throw away further image quality, but often not so much as that you'd notice. That's the whole point of perceptual compression.
That said, with many new digital cameras producing 10 megapixel images (far exceeding the resolving power of their cheap lenses), limiting size might be a good idea too - certainly I can't see a purpose to images on a forum being larger than the size of commonly available monitors, say 1920x1080. I'm sure those with 30" 3840x2400 monitors will still be able to see what they're doing
I started to respond to this thread yesterday, but my dial-up connection went off-line and I lost everything. Not everybody has high-speed access due to availability or willingness/ability to pay for it. I want to see photos, but I can't deal with more than a couple hundred k per.
I supply photos for publication at 1500 pixels width, often compressed; that's not very big, but often quite sufficient for print media. For a web browser I'd never post anything wider than about 800 pixels. There's just no need. I also only link to my website because I want control over the material. That includes the ability to update and change, or even completely delete something if it turns out to be misleading, have a copyright issue or whatever. My content, my control.
As a non-audio example of large images that don't suck up bandwidth and are available to users of dial-up, I recently put up this page.
Is there any reason anybody would need more resolution than that?
Conrad
I supply photos for publication at 1500 pixels width, often compressed; that's not very big, but often quite sufficient for print media. For a web browser I'd never post anything wider than about 800 pixels. There's just no need. I also only link to my website because I want control over the material. That includes the ability to update and change, or even completely delete something if it turns out to be misleading, have a copyright issue or whatever. My content, my control.
As a non-audio example of large images that don't suck up bandwidth and are available to users of dial-up, I recently put up this page.
Is there any reason anybody would need more resolution than that?
Conrad
Excellent! So happy to read comments by guys who actually get it!
I certainly agree with Conrad and Seekerr. Don't automatically download the full size. Show a thumbnail. If I want to see it, I'll click to see full size.
I also try to keep web images at about 800 pixels on the long dimension. That's all we really need for 90% of what is posted here. As for coloradosound's comment - yes, I understand your point - but. The forum is not a high res visual format. It's more like web streaming audio. Keep the bitrate just high enough for decent sound, but not so high that it clogs up everything. Sure, I'd love to stream 24/96K lossless audio all day, but at the moment it isn't practical.
Just for a wee example (sorry dial-up guys). Here is a snapshot I took last weekend. I tried to upload the original from the camera (about 2 meg) but the forum would not take it. Then I saw that the limit for jpg is 975KB. So I had to resize (1920x1080) and save it to a file size of just under 1 meg. The other is resized to 900 pixels wide and re-compressed to hit about 75K. A ratio of ~12:1 (or 25:1 from the original) Just how much difference is there between the two for casual screen viewing?
I certainly agree with Conrad and Seekerr. Don't automatically download the full size. Show a thumbnail. If I want to see it, I'll click to see full size.
I also try to keep web images at about 800 pixels on the long dimension. That's all we really need for 90% of what is posted here. As for coloradosound's comment - yes, I understand your point - but. The forum is not a high res visual format. It's more like web streaming audio. Keep the bitrate just high enough for decent sound, but not so high that it clogs up everything. Sure, I'd love to stream 24/96K lossless audio all day, but at the moment it isn't practical.
Just for a wee example (sorry dial-up guys). Here is a snapshot I took last weekend. I tried to upload the original from the camera (about 2 meg) but the forum would not take it. Then I saw that the limit for jpg is 975KB. So I had to resize (1920x1080) and save it to a file size of just under 1 meg. The other is resized to 900 pixels wide and re-compressed to hit about 75K. A ratio of ~12:1 (or 25:1 from the original) Just how much difference is there between the two for casual screen viewing?
Attachments
I'm a code zero, so I have no idea what it would take to implement, but is it impractical to fully automate thumbnailing or reduced resolution downloading options?
I ask because I look at a lot of pictures from here and it's pretty rare when I open something up and it's huge and clear but nothing in the picture matters. It happens, but usually I'm glad at what I can see and sometimes wish it could be more. A lot of material on here is very technical and with a bit of experience a good look at something can convey a ton of information.
I ask because I look at a lot of pictures from here and it's pretty rare when I open something up and it's huge and clear but nothing in the picture matters. It happens, but usually I'm glad at what I can see and sometimes wish it could be more. A lot of material on here is very technical and with a bit of experience a good look at something can convey a ton of information.
We'll have to ask Jason.
For me the ideal would be small file size thumbnails on the page - with a text that tells you how large the full rez is. That way you can choose to click or not. Don't know if that's possible.
And still to get most folks to resize and save to reasonable file/images sizes. The best of both worlds!
EDIT: Looking at the pix I posted above, both thumbnails seem to be 6.5K. Only when I open them (they zoom out) does the image property show the original file size. So it looks like we are 1/2 way there. Does anyone else see that?
For me the ideal would be small file size thumbnails on the page - with a text that tells you how large the full rez is. That way you can choose to click or not. Don't know if that's possible.
And still to get most folks to resize and save to reasonable file/images sizes. The best of both worlds!
EDIT: Looking at the pix I posted above, both thumbnails seem to be 6.5K. Only when I open them (they zoom out) does the image property show the original file size. So it looks like we are 1/2 way there. Does anyone else see that?
Obviously having the uploader properly process the image would be optimum from a forum server standpoint, but maybe 10% of people who own a digital camera know much about what to do. Overall it might be hard to come up with a variable dl resolution scheme that didn't wind up increasing server load, storage space, or both.
Yeah, I see that - the thumbnails that are shown are only 6.4kb, but it's still preloading the larger version in the background. Rather defeats the point, that.
My 2c worth ....
My main gripe with off-site hosted photos is this ... They disappear !!!!!!!
I have often looked at old threads and posts only to find the photos have gone forever.
With the increase in the permitted size of attached photos and the possibility of posting multiple photos, there is no need to have off-site hosted photos.
Andy
.
My main gripe with off-site hosted photos is this ... They disappear !!!!!!!
I have often looked at old threads and posts only to find the photos have gone forever.
With the increase in the permitted size of attached photos and the possibility of posting multiple photos, there is no need to have off-site hosted photos.
Andy
.
Interesting question... please educate me... my computer skills are a bit hazy in some areas.
With apologies to the poster of this, this is what really gets me, look at post 1754,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/chip-amps/154106-best-sounding-audio-integrated-opamps-90.html
but tell me... is that a picture "hosted" elsewhere as it doesn't say thumbnails etc or is it jsut uploaded as normal to DIY ?
It's the way it opens the margins out that's annoying as it automatically loads to the enourmous size.
I appreciate also that on a slow connection there are issues too.
Both of panomaniacs piccys above are fine, they both appear instantly, just with the option to expand the left one.
So what is different in the one in my link... why does that alter the margins.
With apologies to the poster of this, this is what really gets me, look at post 1754,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/chip-amps/154106-best-sounding-audio-integrated-opamps-90.html
but tell me... is that a picture "hosted" elsewhere as it doesn't say thumbnails etc or is it jsut uploaded as normal to DIY ?
It's the way it opens the margins out that's annoying as it automatically loads to the enourmous size.
I appreciate also that on a slow connection there are issues too.
Both of panomaniacs piccys above are fine, they both appear instantly, just with the option to expand the left one.
So what is different in the one in my link... why does that alter the margins.
Last edited:
I know it does because my connection isn't very fast, yet when I click the image it pops to full size instantly. Obviously, since you'd just posted those images, I'd never viewed them at full size before, so it wasn't grabbing them from cache.
I agree, Andy.
Molly the picture cited by you, it is on an external server.:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/yuelo123/RFShunt2.JPG
The link being made of the picture ,as a picture was inserted.
I made this mistake once, than I wrote of it about this here already:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/165066-large-photos-forum-good-bad-2.html#post2153524
Onto a large picture now already only the link I insert it: Not as "Insert image" only as "Insert link":
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pass-labs/164477-vu-meter-bosoz.html
I don't know, is this solution suitable?
May be.
I pray you, try to decipher what I write.
Wacky Gyuri
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.