Gripe on Image Sizes

[Jstpssng]

Images are now resized automatically.

View attachment 691633

Is THIS the home which you've been working on? Nice place, it almost made me use the "Like" button.

 

[Xfaxman]

I've been beating this drum for quite a while now. I have unlimited data but not the patience to match it. One member likes to include two or three big pictures in a post, and then will get quoted multiple times. This can go on for several days, and my service is so slow that I can't even read that thread.-------------------------------

Now with the new version, quoted posts do not display pictures just a link to click if you want to see the pictures again.

Big improvement .

 

[Muhammad]

Is THIS the home which you've been working on? Nice place, it almost made me use the "Like" button.

No that's some multi-million $ place in Los Angeles.

 

[ning]

File size is not proportional to pixel size.
The test 5000px I resized up with Paint, from 1280x960 file size was 353KB. This is the original from 2005:
View attachment 691959


When it went to 5000x3750px file size went to 3.12MB. The file size displayed now in post #48 is 3.17MB and pixel size is 2500x1875.
View attachment 691960

I used Paint to resize the original 353KB file size up to 2500x1875 and the file size is now 1.24MB.
View attachment 691963

So there are two identical same pixel sizes, with major different file sizes.

I don't understand all I know about this .

image compression.
basically similar areas are replaced with a code, kinda like "this section of the the image is green", and this sort of thing is done over the entire image to produce the compressed image file.

The larger the areas of similarity there are, the fewer codes there are in the resultant compressed file.

Consider these files - one (13KB on my phone) is all one color, and then other (180KB on my phone) has a variety of colors, though it's still pretty regular.

Both images are 1440x1440 pixels in resolution (ignore the file name), but one compresses much better than the other because it's more basic.

Even a human would describe them more simply "this one is all blue" "this one has bands of yellow, red, orange, blue, each band vertical across the whole image and fading in and out .., etc..." so even my description (which is similar to how the computer compresses images) is affected by the image complexity.

 

[Jstpssng]

Now with the new version, quoted posts do not display pictures just a link to click if you want to see the pictures again.

Big improvement .

Not always, it must depend on how the OP loads them. I just tried to reply to a post with 4 (very nice) dog pictures, but it was taking so long that I just backed out.

 

[ArlyA]

Muhammad, Many of the photos people are posted now are large, some 5MB. Did the size reduction software quit? Like these Stump Grinding Observations

 

[Xfaxman]

The reason those pictures are large is there is so much detail in them. The pixel size is 2500x1875:

This picture of the inside of the lens cap is the same pixel size 2500x1875, but only 339KB because there is no detail:

 

[California]

The reason those pictures are large is there is so much detail in them. The pixel size is 2500x1875:

But that 20+ mb set of pix adds almost nothing that isn't already obvious in the thumbnails. Seems to me that anything beyond monitor size should be posted only where more detail will add to the reader's understanding.

 

[Diggin It]

Whatever fix there was is not working. Something like 15Mb or more here:

Anyone familiar with tiger corps digger?

I picked this digger by tiger corps up recently at a sale. It attaches to one of their booms and is used for cleaning out ditches. It can do a mile of ditch per hour supposedly. Anyone know what something like this is worth, or rather how much it would cost new? I've had a hard time finding...

www.tractorbynet.com

 

[oosik]

I will usually resize any pics I upload to around 3mb. I use HughesNet. I downloaded that 11.9 mb picture, just now. It took less than ten seconds.

 

[California]

Whatever fix there was is not working. Something like 15Mb or more here:

Anyone familiar with tiger corps digger?

I picked this digger by tiger corps up recently at a sale. It attaches to one of their booms and is used for cleaning out ditches. It can do a mile of ditch per hour supposedly. Anyone know what something like this is worth, or rather how much it would cost new? I've had a hard time finding...

www.tractorbynet.com

The last picture is 5.4mb and it took 12 seconds to appear. I won't look at the other several photos. There can't be that much significant fine detail in the other five photos that justifies waiting about a minute to view them all.

Rural 10mbps DSL here. (And viewing on a laptop). Speedtest shows 9 mbps down, 0.94 up.

For the rare picture that deserves expanding to see detail, sure, post it.

But in general 1024 x 768 (or the next size larger) and under 1mb will convey what the poster wants to share.

Added:
Here's a photo cropped (not resized) to 1223 x 1090, 572k, that I prepared to send to my kids. They'll view it on their phones so it didn't need to be larger.

I got out my camera with 20x optical zoom when the weasel appeared last week. I waited, and he put on quite a show peeking out of a gopher burrow and finally running around. More pix on request ....

 

[ArlyA]

Few people here seem to know how to crop or adjust, there photo size and just post whatever pics there phone takes. Many aren't worth the wait so we don't open them.

 

[RalphVa]

In this post ( Forestry mulchers: drum or disk? ), there are two images. One is over 8m, the other is over 11M. There is simply no valid reason for images to be that large in file size. Most forums I've been part of limit upload sizes and won't accept images as large as those two. We need to remember that many people are still on low bandwidth connections, some still on various dialup plans, others on limited speed DSL or cellular programs. Others are on satellite or cable plans with daily bandwidth limits.

Consider imposing such upload limits here. 1Mb should be much more than sufficient.

I did a newsletter for 16 years. I always resized images down to 500 to 700 pixels wide, plenty good enough for viewing on the computer and typically 50 to 150k instead of the 4 to 12MB that pictures right off cameras come out as. With the big images, you have to scroll around to see them all.

 

[oosik]

I access TBN with my Apple computer. Hughes Net is my IP. I've never had a problem viewing an attachment of most any size. Adverse weather is my biggest bug-a-boo to opening and viewing attachments. Heck - it's my biggest problem to accessing the internet.

If I had to access TBN with my Apple iPhone - I most likely wouldn't. Too much futzing, too small a screen AND, for sure, the keyboard is just too small.

I wear reading glasses when on the computer. I have a magnifying glass when I use my iPhone. Yes, I can increase the type size - that falls under futzing.

 

[PILOON]

I'll add my gripe to large pics discussion as I'm on a very slow net.
The posters lose out as we simply avoid opening those links.