Standup Zone Forum
General => Random => Topic started by: tautologies on March 07, 2017, 11:50:57 AM
-
Not sure if you have a suggestion box, but it would be great to be able to upload bigger images than 1MB. If you are concerned with space, then just resize it.
Just FYI, it is not a technical limitation for me to resize images, but it is a PITA to do it just to post an image.
-
I'd also like to know the reason as well as to why the size limit is limited to 1 MB.
-
Funny thing about this site is, the pics in a lot of the posts are so big that I can't view the entire photo. I can adjust this by using ctrl - but then the print is too small to read.
Apparently resizing photos is a hassle for some people. I've never had any difficulty with it myself but if allowing bigger files makes it easier to see the photos people post, I'm all for it.
-
What file sizes and resolutions are you working with?
-
If you resize the images then there is no reason to severely limits the upload size.
It would literally nail two flies in one...no more insanely big images that kills the layout, and we don't have to resize before upload.
:-)
It should be a small project. ImageMagick or GD and a plugin for PhpBB...something like https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=456&t=2275146
..a quick config, then edit the php.ini and we're good to go.
-
That would be a nice change to have them resize on the fly. PITA resizing just to post....although I have a batch process I called forzone for resizing below 1mb it would be nice to just upload. Of course I think admin would rather we host photos elsewhere and just link so we keep bandwidth needs down....at least that used to be the case.
-
Hi Guys,
For the images uploaded to the Zone, we already do auto downsize to 800 pixels for the max dimension and there is currently a limit of 1 mb upload per image and 20 images per post. It can add up fairly quickly but I will consider larger. What sizes are you using?
The second system which many users prefer is using one of the free hosting sites, many of which auto resize to a number of preset sizes which can then be posted here via image tag (Mona Lisa icon in the posting window) and to other forums and social sites all from one home. We don't limit file sizes or dimensions for embedded files.
-
You can specify the posted size with just a width parameter in the IMG like {img width=800}{/IMG} substitute square brackets for curly
like:
(http://www.theretirementtrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IMG_2015.JPG)
400px
(http://www.theretirementtrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IMG_2015.JPG)
800
(http://www.theretirementtrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IMG_2015.JPG)
1200
I put the files on my own sites, that particular one is 2.9 mb and the original picture is 4032 wide.
-
(http://imgur.com/gallery/4sIgLx1)
Above is an imgur link...but without the file extension it will not show the image. Its a bit hacky...but maybe I am too picky :-)
Sure..my issue is just with the upload....and mostly because I am too lazy to make the file smaller.
Admin wouldn't it be possible to use S3 as an upload repo...you wouldn't have to worry about storage space. Once the assets are old just move them to something like glazier. I'm just brainstorming :-) Not a big thing.
-
Hi Taut,
Please try posting using the file name ending with the image extension (in this case .png) http://i.imgur.com/4sIgLx1.png .
For your failed example above you had posted only http://imgur.com/gallery/4sIgLx1 without the extension. With the extension and tags I get the image below (and I agree :)).
Taut, I know that you are aware of this but for other users, all current browsers will have an option to right click any web image and select "copy image address" (or similar). That can then be pasted into a post. Highlight that and hit the image tag.
Little known fact. You can also drag a web image into a post and it will paste the address automically. Littler know fact. Go to this google address https://images.google.com/. Drag any image into the search field to directly search by the image itself and find all web instances of that image (even if you change the name, strip off all metadata, paste in a partial image or even somewhat modify the image). Now that is cool shit :)
(http://i.imgur.com/4sIgLx1.png)
-
^ So that image with the Puffin is too big for me to read without scrolling it to the side. Is there any way to fix that?
Edit - Nevermind, "ctrl -" fixed it.
Pono's pics are still too big though. Except his first one.
.
-
Please try posting using the file name ending with the image extension (in this case .png) http://i.imgur.com/4sIgLx1.png .
For your failed example above you had posted only http://imgur.com/gallery/4sIgLx1 without the extension. With the extension and tags I get the image below (and I agree :)).
yeah I know I just wanted to illustrate my point.
Another point is that if one of these services goes down the drain you'll lose a lot of assets. Bit rot is real. :-)
Anyways, no biggie.
-
Here you go:
(http://i.imgur.com/4sIgLx1.png)
{img width=400}
That's why I keep all my images on my own sites. It's the web, the content can be anywhere.
-
^ Thanks Pono.
Admin's photo is actually the perfect size. I just had to zoom the screen out one click and I can still read everything okay.
Your pic has the ability to enlarge by clicking on it which is a good feature. That way it gives you a choice of size and helps keep the thread more compact.
-
a) it’s easier [for user] to just resize server-side
b) the biggest hassle when posting and forgetting pic limits, is that when bounced one needs to retype everything. Bummer.
-
How about letting us edit our posts? I can't fix a spelling or grammar errors - or a screwed up remote-linked photo, just a few hours after posting. A late-night "send" that is read in the morning with full-coffee-driven brain function can't be updated.
I like Pono's pic - small, but clickable-big. Nice. When I view the site on my tablet, most pics on this site tend to suck - I get a narrow strip for text and pics of the thread, have to scroll back and forth to see the picture - so I don't usually bother. There is lots of room for ads on the sides (somebody has to pay the bills, I'm find with that) - but I'd like it if the pics that were sized to be seen "as is".
I don't think we need large photos so much as software that resizes them easily. I'm spoiled by Outlook (on my cell) that says "re-size to 30%?" and ta-da, my 2.5 meg cell phone pic is 172k and looks fine up to about 5"x7" or even more on the 21" screen but doesn't overload eat up much of my cellphone data plan or the server space.
Erik
-
@Admin
I'd say all of the sites I visit are limited to pixel size except the Zoner site. My monitor is 24" and has a resolution of 1920x1080. When someone wants to see some of my pictures, lets say what my customized Pale Moon browser looks like, I resize it 1366x768, put it into my Pictures folder and then upload it to the site via an attachment. This way, the attachment shows up, then the person clicks on it to enlarge it to the 1366x768 size.
This 1366x768 is about perfect for someone with a 14" laptop and I don't have to use a third party hosting site such as Photobucket to post a photo. And I can delete the photo from my Pictures folder so the attachment doesn't get deleted on your site. If I delete a picture on here that is in my Photobucket album, then the picture on the Zoner site gets automatically deleted too.
Now if it comes down to cost and/or bandwidth for you, then I can understand that and I will just grin and bear it. But the Zoner's way of posting pictures as it now stands, via a third party hosting site, is the main reason why I don't post very many photos.
The above is just "food for thought".
-
When I view the site on my tablet, most pics on this site tend to suck - I get a narrow strip for text and pics of the thread, have to scroll back and forth to see the picture - so I don't usually bother. There is lots of room for ads on the sides (somebody has to pay the bills, I'm find with that) - but I'd like it if the pics that were sized to be seen "as is".
Erik
Hi,
On your tablet please press on the image an hold until options appear. Then select open in a new tab. Does that help?
-
sure. ;)
Not a "friendly to read" option - but an ok "view just this photo in as much detail as possible" option. I did know how to do that.
This is even less convenient that the "slide back and forth to see the edges" that I do already, when i care enough to try to see the photo. The photos, when part of storyline, should be part of the flow of reading the thread - or perhaps that's just my opinion.
I tried turning to landscape - it just gets bigger, with the ads and pics to the same scale.
I can live with it - but pics that were small like Pono's "small pic" example, that only went to larger size when clicked would work with my pc, my tablet, my phone all equally as well.
-
I like Pono's pic - small, but clickable-big. Nice. When I view the site on my tablet, most pics on this site tend to suck - I get a narrow strip for text and pics of the thread, have to scroll back and forth to see the picture - so I don't usually bother. There is lots of room for ads on the sides (somebody has to pay the bills, I'm find with that) - but I'd like it if the pics that were sized to be seen "as is".
Understand that all I'm doing is using a feature that is already present on the zone--the ability to target a picture of any size but specify how wide it should be displayed by adding a width parameter. Of course, it's up to the original poster to make that happen, but I do it routinely. Sometimes I'll resize a picture, but most times I just click the Mona Lisa icon, paste the link to the picture between the brackets, and then edit the leading macro to add a width parameter. I generally use 800, but you can spec any width you prefer. The click to resize is automatic and shows the picture in its native size.
This is a persistent issue in web design. If you use a WordPress blog, you often wind up with five or more representations of every picture used to fit all the thumbnail and varied display requirements of the site. Some "responsive" themes add more or do something dynamic to resize photos, which slows the site and sometimes garbles images. Not easy to fix. My main desk screen at home is an LG Ultrawide, curved, 3440 X1440 with a 2650 X 1080 IIIP display drawing tablet on one side and my 1440 X900 MacBook Air on the other. In Maui it's a 27" 5K iMac with an old Mac Cinema display next to it. I don't remember what's at the shop, except that it's big. I have old eyes which are presently seeing double from some pain in the ass virus screwing with one of my eyeball nerves.
Displays are all over the map, and with booming 4K and 5K displays, it's gonna get a lot worse.
-
lol I sorta miss everything at 640x480 - which was primarily due to the limitations of downloading anything large :D
So - you just stick this? {img width=400} after the first [ img ] - but you are hosting your pics on your own server you said....
I was going to actually upload a pic to the site and see what happened, but I can't preview and modify it until it's posted - and given the limited ability to edit posts later...... this may not be what I wanted to do. We'll see.
-
Picture of a Euro chick in low res.
-
(http://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31440.0;attach=81831;image)
SO - this image is uploaded to standupzone - which is what this thread is about. It's 872x556 (weird size cause I "snipped" it manually) - PonoBills explanation of the "width" setting allowed me to make it only 400 pixels wide. This is only a solution if you are remote-hosting your pics - the "upload" file doesn't happen until you hit enter and your post is part of the thread. Once it's
Peeps want to be able to "just upload" what they have - I'm guessing it's often direct from a phone where they took the pic - and add it to the story of the thread "easily". 1 meg limitation allows for a very large photo, really - but most phones/cameras are up past 2 or 3 meg.
I finally just quoted PonoBill so I could SEE the correct layout - and here's a snip (remotely hosted 'cause if I just upload I can't control where it goes):
(http://i66.tinypic.com/30iyjix.jpg)
Couldn't the forum software always set a limit on width - and you want the big pic, you click?
Would it also be possible to have it resize the larger pics (larger than 1 meg) so as to let users who don't want to off-site-host just upload the larger pics?
And - since I plan to use the image-width-thingy - how wide is the "easy" viewing size of a photo across most of the views?
400?
(http://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31440.0;attach=81831;image)
600?
(http://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31440.0;attach=81831;image)
800?
(http://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31440.0;attach=81831;image)
-
this is a test. I've never used upload before, but what the heck. Ah, I see, if you modify the post it doesn't show up as a IMG and location. It's not editable. Okay, that's awkward.
-
Yeah - but now that it's uploaded, you can modifiy it - so if there was a "test" forum, you could put them there, and "rehost" them to the thread you wanted them in.
Or just put them on tinypic/photobucket/supermotors/etc. :D This picture is YUUUGE but only 225k if you click on it - then open it on another tab. YUUUGE I tell ya. And the original I took in 2002 was a 2.2 megapixel camera. It's not ALL about the megapixels/megabytes.
(http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/178036/original/2739418.mt.drumcopy.jpg)
-
Couldn't the forum software always set a limit on width - and you want the big pic, you click?
Would it also be possible to have it resize the larger pics (larger than 1 meg) so as to let users who don't want to off-site-host just upload the larger pics?
Sadly, no. There are 4 separate resize functions currently in use. Our portal uses one, the attachment feature uses one, the video plugin uses one, and the the post embed function has the option to use one or not (set to not as this one is problematic in our configuration). These all fight with each other and are on their own update schedules. The updates tend to break functionality in the others.
Our options right now are A. upload any size or dimension off site and embed here. You will need to scroll to view on a lower res device/window or open those in a new window. If/when the scroll will kick in will depend on the resolution of the device/open window/user zoom settings/browser. B. upload using the stock attachment feature. This will auto resize to 800 pixels (which may still require scroll on some devices/Window dimensions). Upload is limited to 1 MB per image at 20 images per post (20 MB/post). That is a much higher MB per post than most sites will allow and more puts a drag on the system and has other implications.
Forum software is great but it has many quirks. As mobile usage continues to strengthen the developers are making that more of a native priority. They are slower than we would like in that respect but on the whole it is a pretty remarkable product.
-
yeah. It used to be if you put up more than a 70k pic at 640x480 you got banned for awhile lol.
The remote hosting is pretty easy - the hardest part is waiting for the ads to play before you batch upload to Photobucket - and then it provides a nice resized pic already with the img stuff added to it. I almost NEVER upload to the Zone. I'm here for the information mostly anyway :D but I do like a nicely laid out trip report on the flatwater forum to look at.
Thanks for the information.
But.
How about editing?
Why not allow it?