The server resizes the images to fit. Your browser may resize also. Sometimes it takes a few seconds to happen, that's why you see a big image, then a small one. Unfortunately, even when resized to fit the screen, the file size can still be huge.
Schematics present a problem. If the image is clean, then even a big, detailed image can have a small file size in GIF or PNG format. But if it's a rough looking scan, the file size will jump thru the roof. Either way, it's best to attach it.
Schematics present a problem. If the image is clean, then even a big, detailed image can have a small file size in GIF or PNG format. But if it's a rough looking scan, the file size will jump thru the roof. Either way, it's best to attach it.
For starters.... I believe there's a limit to how many photos can be attached to a post? Yes? Or, is it a total size limitation?
I usually attach a few pictures to show my approach, etc. For projects I'm chronicling and have many photos to share, I post a link to Photobucket. Why would that link disappear in time? Does Photobucket change the link somewhere along the line? I'm not aware of any links changing to my Photobucket site.
Are you saying hi-res photos (> 1meg) should not be attached, but only use little 80k sized images?
Last point... I don't like having to change my camera's resolution (it's a hassle) all the time just to post a couple of photos. That's why the few images I do ever upload are > 80k. As soon as I forget to change the resolution and try to upload a large file and get an error, I usually just give up and don't post anything.
Redjr.
Your post is full of errors.
There's no limit to the number of pics you can attach to the Forum.
There is a limit (I don't know how big) to how many pics can be attached to a single post.
The pic size is limited as described in Manage attachments.
Remote servers habitually lose data links, or shut down, or require registration or simply don't link.
Hi res pics can be attached. Just compress them using efficient compression software to keep under the pic size limit. I use Irfanview.
I don't need to change my camera's resolution. It downloads a full resolution pic of >2MB for each pic. After cropping and compressing to a hi res pic I often find 100k to 200k is very good quality on a 1920x1080 monitor.
If I compress to lower resolution I can get good lo res pics to <50kB
Use software that is easy to work with. Complicated software is no good to me, I can never remember where all the options are buried in all the submenus.
Your post is full of errors.
There's no limit to the number of pics you can attach to the Forum.
There is a limit (I don't know how big) to how many pics can be attached to a single post.
The pic size is limited as described in Manage attachments.
Remote servers habitually lose data links, or shut down, or require registration or simply don't link.
Hi res pics can be attached. Just compress them using efficient compression software to keep under the pic size limit. I use Irfanview.
I don't need to change my camera's resolution. It downloads a full resolution pic of >2MB for each pic. After cropping and compressing to a hi res pic I often find 100k to 200k is very good quality on a 1920x1080 monitor.
If I compress to lower resolution I can get good lo res pics to <50kB
Use software that is easy to work with. Complicated software is no good to me, I can never remember where all the options are buried in all the submenus.
Thanks Cal. I thought it was somewhere around that number. I never embed my pictures in the body of the post anyway. I always attach them, but I've found you cannot do 6 or 7 at a time. Maybe mine were too large. I've also discovered that the Forum software does apply some level of compression too. It would be nice to know the exact raw size it allows before their compression takes over. Maybe those metrics are published somewhere.
I think this is really about people with slow connections. It really is a non-issue for anyone with a 1M or faster connection - and my phone easily achieves that.
I'm sorry if any of you have a slow connection but that's always going to cause you problems. You can't expect others to step back in time with small, heavily compressed images because you have a slow connection.
Flickr has upgraded to free 2,048 pixel wide (~3MP) image hosting. So I upload there once and then post a link on every other site. Flickr might be around a lot longer than diyaudio and provides a one-stop source for all the photos I share, and helps other people find images they want on that site.
So, sorry, but if the image doesn't break the rules, then I'm not going to cripple the technology to suit the lowest common denominator.
This is only my opinion. I'm happy to follow the forum rules. Peace to all.
I'm sorry if any of you have a slow connection but that's always going to cause you problems. You can't expect others to step back in time with small, heavily compressed images because you have a slow connection.
Flickr has upgraded to free 2,048 pixel wide (~3MP) image hosting. So I upload there once and then post a link on every other site. Flickr might be around a lot longer than diyaudio and provides a one-stop source for all the photos I share, and helps other people find images they want on that site.
So, sorry, but if the image doesn't break the rules, then I'm not going to cripple the technology to suit the lowest common denominator.
This is only my opinion. I'm happy to follow the forum rules. Peace to all.
Last edited:
It could also be about data rate charges on portable/wireless devices. Some might want to read the forum (basically text only, though webforums are still a lot more overhead than email or newsgroups) without having to load megabyte+ sized pics that aren't going to show well on a phone screen anyway. It's better viewed on a larger screen, in the office or home where there's no per-megabyte charge or limit.
As far as "rules" I don't think there's anything to prevent you from uploading to a photo site AND uploading to DIYaudio, and have both the link to the photo site and the attached image in your post. Yes, it's more trouble for the poster, but helpful for the viewer. An advantage for the poster to doing both is it gives an extra online backup.
Websites (if they're not co-locatee on both coasts, etc) CAN go down in emergency situations. Gawker and I understand several others went down during hurricane Sandy.
As far as "rules" I don't think there's anything to prevent you from uploading to a photo site AND uploading to DIYaudio, and have both the link to the photo site and the attached image in your post. Yes, it's more trouble for the poster, but helpful for the viewer. An advantage for the poster to doing both is it gives an extra online backup.
Websites (if they're not co-locatee on both coasts, etc) CAN go down in emergency situations. Gawker and I understand several others went down during hurricane Sandy.
I think you are assuming they don't know how to turn off pictures and flash in their mobile browser ?
Except they aren't suggesting uploading the same to both - they are suggesting uploading a downgraded version here. A back up of a tiny, heavily compressed file is not a back up.
It also isn't helpful - let me explain what helpful is. My camera can take very sharp 16MP picture of things about 20mm across. I can view this on a 24" screen and see things I can't with a magnifying glass - that's helpful. Macro photography is very helpful in this hobby. Small, compressed images are only "helpful" to low bandwidth users because they don't have to wait ages for a high quality image to load.
I want high quality images and I encourage others to take such photos and post them. It's a total waste of time to upload crap that doesn't help people see solder issues etc.
I'm sure we all agree we can cope with the inconvenience of a missing image when others are struggling with such disasters.
Now you might argue that I'm being inconsiderate by not catering to a reasonable request. Turn that right around - it's inconsiderate to ask people not to make full use of the technology that's available these days, just because a few people can't.
I havent had any issues with using http://imgur.com hosting, they even post the bb code img url img etc once youve done uploading.
If its absence diminishes the value of the post/thread/forum, any temporary graphic should be avoided IMO. Large hi-res graphics can be a perfectly acceptable alternate to "getting the point" graphic post attachments.
When the situation calls for macrophotography, it should be understood as such. When available technology allows improved optional access, why not make use of it? While also avoiding multiplied inconveniences? Multiply choices instead.
I get where you're coming from, but does it mean if you and I should meet I should only text you from across the room? To phrase it in a neutral but meaningful way... Is technology without humanity desirable?
When the situation calls for macrophotography, it should be understood as such. When available technology allows improved optional access, why not make use of it? While also avoiding multiplied inconveniences? Multiply choices instead.
I think some of you are thinking it backwards.
*Attached* pictures are the ones that take up DIY server space and "eat" its bandwidth; those hosted elsewhere do NOT.
The DIY page only holds a tiny (a few *bytes*) link pointing to the actual picture address, and the guy who's reading the page gets the "light" HTML from DIY and the "heavy" picture from the external server.
It does not go through DIY in any way.
FWIW I sometimes draw or post schematics to illustrate some point, but I *always* edit them in IrfanView to: GIF, 1 bit which means only black "china ink" on pure white, no greys.
Sometimes I refer to a very poorly scanned schematic (such as an old Gibson or whatever) and reducing to 1 bit destroys part of the image, so in that case only I reduce to "16 grey".
My schematics are real sharp and readable and same KB size or smaller than the JPEG version.
In fact JPEG, a *colour* picture standard, must not be used for black on white detailed images, such as schematics or mechanical blueprints.
This is an example:
It's a large image, originally 1565x486 px.
In *this* particular case it's unnecessary, because the schematic is very simple, but if it were , say, a JCM90, a Twin Reverb, a Randall or similar or higher complexity schematic, it would be the *minimum* size or it would be unreadable.
Now, how does my "huge image" tax the system's resources?
Let's see what unjustly dreaded Imageshack says:
Where's the system overload ?
And as I said before, It does not come through DIY at all.
What you must set your sights on, is on clueless people (99,9% by the way) who take amp or guitar or even a simple ceramic cap pictures at camera's max resolution, ("hey!! I bought a 12MP camera, now I'll use it") and post them as-is.
They don't even notice it, because Browser software by default resizes them to screen size .... burning its neurons in the process plus wasting all that bandwidth.
But a properly processed image such as the ones I post should not be frowned upon, quite the contrary.
And as mentioned by others, besides holding rights on them, there's the very practical posibility of being able to edit them, often to show a schematic voltage or part value change or focusing on another point in the same schematic.
Why not upload and hold them here, at DIY?
Not sure about what happens here, but many times in other Forums the software they run automaticaly resizes images ... making schematics unreadable.
I think that if you want to keep byte size under control, you should keep track of *byte* size ... and that for those actually hosted here, but not for *pixel* count which can be very efficient, as I have shown above, and absolutely necessary for readability.
As a suggestion: you *may* add a requirement that "images larger than xxx by yyy pixels must be in .gif or .png formats" which are lossless and keep sharpness, plus being quite compact and free from artifacts.
This will automatically sweep away clueless people.
Those who have no idea of what picture size means, will be even less able to convert formats and reduce color depth.
Just an idea.
*Attached* pictures are the ones that take up DIY server space and "eat" its bandwidth; those hosted elsewhere do NOT.
The DIY page only holds a tiny (a few *bytes*) link pointing to the actual picture address, and the guy who's reading the page gets the "light" HTML from DIY and the "heavy" picture from the external server.
It does not go through DIY in any way.
FWIW I sometimes draw or post schematics to illustrate some point, but I *always* edit them in IrfanView to: GIF, 1 bit which means only black "china ink" on pure white, no greys.
Sometimes I refer to a very poorly scanned schematic (such as an old Gibson or whatever) and reducing to 1 bit destroys part of the image, so in that case only I reduce to "16 grey".
My schematics are real sharp and readable and same KB size or smaller than the JPEG version.
In fact JPEG, a *colour* picture standard, must not be used for black on white detailed images, such as schematics or mechanical blueprints.
This is an example:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It's a large image, originally 1565x486 px.
In *this* particular case it's unnecessary, because the schematic is very simple, but if it were , say, a JCM90, a Twin Reverb, a Randall or similar or higher complexity schematic, it would be the *minimum* size or it would be unreadable.
Now, how does my "huge image" tax the system's resources?
Let's see what unjustly dreaded Imageshack says:
8.64 KB !!!! <<<<<<<<<< !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where's the system overload ?
And as I said before, It does not come through DIY at all.
What you must set your sights on, is on clueless people (99,9% by the way) who take amp or guitar or even a simple ceramic cap pictures at camera's max resolution, ("hey!! I bought a 12MP camera, now I'll use it") and post them as-is.
They don't even notice it, because Browser software by default resizes them to screen size .... burning its neurons in the process plus wasting all that bandwidth.
But a properly processed image such as the ones I post should not be frowned upon, quite the contrary.
And as mentioned by others, besides holding rights on them, there's the very practical posibility of being able to edit them, often to show a schematic voltage or part value change or focusing on another point in the same schematic.
Why not upload and hold them here, at DIY?
Not sure about what happens here, but many times in other Forums the software they run automaticaly resizes images ... making schematics unreadable.
I think that if you want to keep byte size under control, you should keep track of *byte* size ... and that for those actually hosted here, but not for *pixel* count which can be very efficient, as I have shown above, and absolutely necessary for readability.
As a suggestion: you *may* add a requirement that "images larger than xxx by yyy pixels must be in .gif or .png formats" which are lossless and keep sharpness, plus being quite compact and free from artifacts.
This will automatically sweep away clueless people.
Those who have no idea of what picture size means, will be even less able to convert formats and reduce color depth.
Just an idea.
Last edited:
Sorry Jim, you're wrong on this one. 
If you had read the thread, you'd understand why.
Your example, however, is the exception. It's a well done, small GIF that is easy for just about anybody to view. The vast majority of images posted to the forum are NOT like that.
And your example still does not solve the problem of disappearing images, which has been a big problem here.
If you had read the thread, you'd understand why.Your example, however, is the exception. It's a well done, small GIF that is easy for just about anybody to view. The vast majority of images posted to the forum are NOT like that.
Yes, some forums do, and it's frustrating. This forum does not, as has been shown numerous time in this thread a throughout diyAudio.
And your example still does not solve the problem of disappearing images, which has been a big problem here.
Big Pix,s
Not to be mistaken for Big T... lol (Triodes!) Where is your head at? I agree with pano's reply #6 I do NOT know how to use my camera and wished I could post pix's as I feel it would better explain some of my Q&A.
I recently bought a camera via ebay. Though new, It takes for granted all of us out here is up-to-speed on modern tech. Getting my photos down to an acceptable size is my problem. Call me old school, but I do need a link to a tutorial on this vary subject!
Francis
Not to be mistaken for Big T... lol (Triodes!) Where is your head at? I agree with pano's reply #6 I do NOT know how to use my camera and wished I could post pix's as I feel it would better explain some of my Q&A.
I recently bought a camera via ebay. Though new, It takes for granted all of us out here is up-to-speed on modern tech. Getting my photos down to an acceptable size is my problem. Call me old school, but I do need a link to a tutorial on this vary subject!
Francis