Maybe I live in an alternative universe.
I have had my Samsung Fold 3 set to save HEIC (don't know why they don't have an option for JPG and HEIC, they have one for JPG and raw...) and any time I "share" anything it just works.
All of the major and even minor photo sites support it. Facebook save in it for the reasons you said.
I just can't believe that it isn't this easy and transparent for everyone. This is honestly the only site I interact with that doesn't support it now.
I want to save as HEIC, so in the past, I just look at the photo, "copy" it, and paste it into the window.
I'm still wondering how to attach the picture like I did above but have it show up in preview. When I paste the same image it exceeds the limit.
Seeing as no browser currently supports HEIC, I think what you're describing is those sites accepting HEIC, then converting it to JPG or another format. If you see an image in your browser after uploading, I can almost certainly assure you the image is no longer an HEIC, because browsers do not yet support HEIC. Try right clicking and saving the image you see in your browser after doing whatever you are doing. I can almost guarantee at this point that it is not an HEIC.
Also, I should mention that if you are talking about Facebook, Instagram, Twitter... keep in mind those are billion dollar companies with thousands of highly paid programmers working for them that have a dozen people whose job is just to take care of one button in an interface. We're a tiny forum, relatively speaking, with vanishingly small budget, reliant primarily on well supported 3rd party plugins and services, expensive IT help when we can afford it, and what I can do in between taking care of other responsibilities.
Which one? An HEIC? It will never show a preview, because browsers cannot display HEIC. It will just show as an attachment.
I'm very happy to help, but you need to give me a solid clean starting image that we can talk about. Please upload it in a .zip or, provide an off-site Dropbox/Google drive link, and then we can "compare apples with apples". <3
Last edited:
Ya my mistake. I'm sorry about that. I have a terible memory and got confused on which photos I showed.
This is the closest I can get to two images without a tripod.
In this case, the numbers are readable in both images. The HEIC is smaller and that counts for storage costs as you said.
I think the real issue is image handling here.
HEIC isn't supported, so I double click it to view it and "copy and paste" it to the forum. Somewhere it (on my side no doubt) becomes a large PNG. That the forum converts to a smaller file. Changing the limit from 10MB to 20MB would fix this particular issue but so would manually transcoding on my side.
I know
I know this, too. I just didn't think the decoder cost money like MP3 Fraunhofer MP3 decoder was free but the encoder cost money... I appreciate this site and what you do to run it. Truly. I think we all do (well the ones who donate more than not?).
No this: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/heic-image-conversion.393092/page-2#post-7196892
How do I embed the image without just pasting it? Attaching it doesn't show it.
Specifically top vs bottom.: EDIT this will get people clicking on the picture thinking it's the rest of the forum! LOL
Do you get OS stats as well as browser? Do you know the percentage of people visiting from all the different platforms and browsers? That would make a pretty colourful pie chart I think 🙂
In this .zip you uploaded, there is a JPG and an HEIC. The JPG is much clearer than the HEIC. I'm confused - how did the JPG get clearer when converted from the HEIC? If you took two separate photos, not using a tripod, even using a tripod, that's unfortunately not going to help with the discussion here which is about forum compression. What you'd be doing then, is discussing your camera's method of JPG compression. That has nothing to do with this website, and everything to do with your camera's settings and what the programmers of your camera did when configuring the image quality parameters that are being fed to the program inside your camera that is creating the JPG or HEIC files.
Lossless PNG of a screenshot of my screen showing your two reference images.
The issue is not the encoder, the issue is at present there is no technology or service for XF that I know of that does cross format conversion. If you find one for XF let me know. I'll be keeping an eye out for one in the future. Our current image handling plugin doesn't do it.
Just drag the image from your desktop, or folder, straight into your message. Drag and drop.
If we are going to have 3MB (or more?? 17MB???) images, can we PLEASE display image size before I click on a modem-choker?
Also: many images are trash because poor light ("grain") or extra contrast (fools the exposure algorithm) or actual dust.
You can do fine-detail pornography in a Meg or so. Here's four large images in <3Meg. File size and image size are noted by the board software. Yes the 67 KB "Red" image is a little "dreamy" at full size, but the others are detailed.
Last edited:
As an example here's a picture I took some some year ago of an old audio card with a ca. 13 or so year old 10MP pocket camera (a bit better than average from its era as it has manual settings), the in-camera capture setting was set to 2.5MP and JPG producing a 1.2MB file size.
In GIMP I did add a bit of S curve correction and a tiny bit of sharpening and then halved the size further down to 1000x625px, and as 'icing on the cake' I did set the compression Q to lowish 40 instead of GIMP's default 90, which produces a picture size of only 70 kB (ie. 0.07 Megabytes), and the result is as follow (click on the thumbnail for full size).
For comparison, added a picture below where compression Q = 90 which produces a 233kB file, roughly 3.3 times larger yet quite small visual difference compared to Q = 40 above.
Q = 75 or 85 is quite a common compression setting too from what I have seen when inspecting pictures with an EXIF viewer, a good compromise between size and quality, going somewhere beyond 95 provides for almost invisible visual improvements while the file size starts to crawl upwards exponentially.
So to me JPG have for the moment all the image fidelity potential there is for a non-imaging/photography centric discussion forum such as DiyA, the rest is up to the operator behind the camera.
ps. The size of the IC encapsulation on the left is ca. 9.8 x 5.6mm.
In GIMP I did add a bit of S curve correction and a tiny bit of sharpening and then halved the size further down to 1000x625px, and as 'icing on the cake' I did set the compression Q to lowish 40 instead of GIMP's default 90, which produces a picture size of only 70 kB (ie. 0.07 Megabytes), and the result is as follow (click on the thumbnail for full size).
For comparison, added a picture below where compression Q = 90 which produces a 233kB file, roughly 3.3 times larger yet quite small visual difference compared to Q = 40 above.
Q = 75 or 85 is quite a common compression setting too from what I have seen when inspecting pictures with an EXIF viewer, a good compromise between size and quality, going somewhere beyond 95 provides for almost invisible visual improvements while the file size starts to crawl upwards exponentially.
So to me JPG have for the moment all the image fidelity potential there is for a non-imaging/photography centric discussion forum such as DiyA, the rest is up to the operator behind the camera.
:)ps. The size of the IC encapsulation on the left is ca. 9.8 x 5.6mm.
Just to point out again - I note the second image is 225kb down from 233kb, no doubt due to the forum post-processing the image through the current image optimising service. Images when immediately posted will be the original, after some time they will be updated after being run through a post-post image optimisation service. That service exists because most images posted can be significantly reduced in size without any noticeable image degradation. I did a heck of a lot of comparisons of images output by all the services and found them all to be very good at what they do, and very conservative in dulling any quality. Tweaking the service and settings can be done in the future...
Also adding a checkbox or something like "The images in this post need to remain original quality, don't recompress them" as an option could be a nice addition in the future.
Also adding a checkbox or something like "The images in this post need to remain original quality, don't recompress them" as an option could be a nice addition in the future.
@Jason
Yes I noticed that too only the second picture got smaller as I did download both back onto my machine to check, the first one did not change in size at all, is there a Q value threshold for when the forum's additional post-processing would happen, or is it a more complex thing with some image analyzing stuff involved?
Yes I noticed that too only the second picture got smaller as I did download both back onto my machine to check, the first one did not change in size at all, is there a Q value threshold for when the forum's additional post-processing would happen, or is it a more complex thing with some image analyzing stuff involved?
We can use a number of providers, or on-server processing. At the moment we're passing to resmush.it which is doing a good job. Image quality is set to 92/100 which is the default. You can see more here: https://resmush.it/api and I note you can actually test the IQ variable using this URL structure, if you have a reference image that has a valid file extension: http://api.resmush.it/ws.php?img=ht...ssets/images/jpg_example_original.jpg&qlty=95 eg by something like https://api.resmush.it/ws.php?img=h...ent/uploads/2016/12/carrie-fisher.jpg&qlty=95 (then click on the "dest" link in the JSON response).
In the future I suspect we'll build our own more capable image processing solution. I have noticed in the server logs that resmush does occasionally have some downtime.
In the future I suspect we'll build our own more capable image processing solution. I have noticed in the server logs that resmush does occasionally have some downtime.
That's what I usually do, but when I did that it was too large for the message and I got the same error - I had to attach it.
I was not suggesting the forum serve 17MB files, just that for convenience a file that size could be uploaded and processed on the server side.
The last time I had to use dial-up was about 20 years ago. 21600 bps was fast at one point, but I think if I needed to use a slow pipe like that now, I'd use Lynx and browse the web in text.
I've been spoiled with fast internet for a long time and it slipped my mind that some people still don't have "broadband". My apologies for not considering that.
My result of a speed test today. Limited by the server - I have an 8 gigabit symmetrical fibre connection here.
The forum is helping you in this case, a feature not a bug.
I assume you are talking about your 17MB PNG. The fact it's over 10MB tells you it was a poor choice for an appropriate file format.
If you saved it as a JPG, it would have been around 5MB, and looked exactly the same, and not been an issue.
When 99% of our members have an 8 gigabit symmetrical fibre connection you can be assured I will bump up the 10MB file size limit.
What are we viewing on the forum that even needs to be that size? Pics of amps and PCB's don't need to be 5megs do they?
jeff
Maybe you don't understand how copy and paste works in GNOME.
A screenshot or image copied and pasted is copied uncompressed from the screen and captured as a PNG.
So when I drag and drop or copy and paste a file here, it's a raw PNG, not the JPG I loaded in a viewer and copied from the screen.
Here is an example of the format that gets created.
Just saying, it would just be convenient if the forum would take larger images - especially if it's downconverting/transcoding them anyway.
Frankly, the 17.5MB file was an weird issue - I've never had an issue with any other copy and paste here.
When 99% of the members here have 8 gigabit symmetrical, I'll be long dead LOL
The only reason I have it is because it cost me 15$ a month less than the 3 gig connection I had before. It's a fat enough pipe for a school or office. Completely overkill for one or two devices.