Forum Photo Size Limit...?

Pete Ebbink · 09-24-2002, 09:55 PM

Hello John D. and/or John S.;

What's the chance of having the photo upload size limit raised a bit from its current maximum size of 180 KB ? Maybe 250 KB or so...???

Regards,

Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

John Sabato · 09-25-2002, 10:53 AM

Pete,

This is a question that John D. will have to answer... these are his servers and he controls the space allocations... FYI, the new member gallery feature does not have a size limitation, at least for the present time...

conchojack · 09-25-2002, 07:03 PM

FYI, Many of the programs that display digital photographs allow you to set the size limit of your photograph. I used one that came with my digital camera, Camedia master 1.2, to make sure my pictures were reduced to less than 180Kbytes. Hope this helps.
conchojack

John D. · 09-25-2002, 07:58 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Wm. Pete Ebbink:
<strong>Hello John D. and/or John S.;

What's the chance of having the photo upload... </strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi Pete,

Sure - I can do that - give me a bit, though... Another alternative is to go to the "Member Gallery" and create an Album under your own name - and you can add/delete photos at your convenience. Also - that program and server will "resize" your photos on the fly for you automatically - so you can upload any size photo you would like..

You can access the Member Gallery by going here Select Member Gallery from the left hand link.....

Best to you!

John D.

Ron Wood · 09-25-2002, 08:12 PM

Reading between the lines on Pete's post, I am guessing he wants to be able to show greater detail in a larger format. Now to show really close-up detail, it is necessary to crop the image down to display a smaller area that will result in an appropriate file size. The Member Gallery does the automatic resizing, so even though you submit a large high-resolution photo, I am also guessing that some of the resolution is lost in the resizing?

John D. · 09-25-2002, 08:27 PM

Hi Ron..!

Actually - there are three formats for each photo - depending on the size...

When a user "uploads" a photo - the program creates a "thumbnail" which I have programmed in the size so folks don't have to worry about it..

The second iteration of the photo is the size for the screen at 640x4(xx) (depending on the deminsions. If the original photo is larger then 640x4(xx) - then the third photo rendition is kept, and can be seen by clicking on the image...

Sooo - if Pete uploaded a photo at 2048 x XXX - folks can still see that by clicking on his photo, as I store all 3 Image sizes and formats...

Best to you!!
John D.

Ron Wood · 09-25-2002, 08:39 PM

Very enlightening, oh Guru of the Gigabyte. Thanks for the illumination.

John D. · 09-25-2002, 09:03 PM

[quote]Originally posted by Ron Wood:
<strong>Very enlightening, oh Guru of the Gigabyte..</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sometimes, I got'ta tell you, Ron....

You crack me up [img]biggrin.gif[/img] <img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" /> <img src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" border="0" alt="[hiha]" />

Doubs · 09-26-2002, 02:03 PM

I'd like to voice an opposing viewpoint... with my reasons, of course.

I'd like to see the maximum file size DECREASED rather than increased. At work I have cable but at home I'm on a dial-up modem and large files take quite a long time to download, even when I'm connected at 48K. Secondly, pictures that exceed the width of the screen require scrolling to read the text and that can become a pain depending upon the message length.

Pictures at 72 pixels per inch will give a 7 inch wide image at 504 pixels. An image that wide will easily fit on the screen and file size won't be excessive. There are very few circumstances that require anything larger and most images can be even smaller without the loss of detail that the poster wants viewers to see.

All photo programs that come on home computers or are included with a digital camera that I've used have the capability of manipulating image size and pixel count. Actually, if a picture is recorded at 100 pixels per inch, reducing the pixels to 72ppi will also reduce the image size by 28%. With a little experimentation anyone should be able to discover how to reduce image size.

There is always a loss of accutance (edge sharpness) when a picture is reduced in size. The program should also include a means of sharpening the image again.

This is only my opinion and I'm sure it's going against the grain but huge pictures with large file sizes really aren't necessary if the basics of a computer photo program are used.

09-24-2002, 09:55 PM	#1
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Forum Photo Size Limit...? Hello John D. and/or John S.; What's the chance of having the photo upload size limit raised a bit from its current maximum size of 180 KB ? Maybe 250 KB or so...??? Regards, Pete... <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

09-25-2002, 10:53 AM	#2
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,154 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,306 Times in 1,097 Posts	Pete, This is a question that John D. will have to answer... these are his servers and he controls the space allocations... FYI, the new member gallery feature does not have a size limitation, at least for the present time... __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

09-25-2002, 07:03 PM	#3
conchojack User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: College Station, Texas Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	FYI, Many of the programs that display digital photographs allow you to set the size limit of your photograph. I used one that came with my digital camera, Camedia master 1.2, to make sure my pictures were reduced to less than 180Kbytes. Hope this helps. conchojack __________________ Sir, not being informed to the highest degree of accuracy, I hesitate to articulate for fear I might deviate from the true course of rectitude.

09-25-2002, 08:12 PM	#5
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 7,019 Thanks: 1,090 Thanked 5,173 Times in 1,701 Posts	Reading between the lines on Pete's post, I am guessing he wants to be able to show greater detail in a larger format. Now to show really close-up detail, it is necessary to crop the image down to display a smaller area that will result in an appropriate file size. The Member Gallery does the automatic resizing, so even though you submit a large high-resolution photo, I am also guessing that some of the resolution is lost in the resizing? __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

09-25-2002, 08:39 PM	#7
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 7,019 Thanks: 1,090 Thanked 5,173 Times in 1,701 Posts	Very enlightening, oh Guru of the Gigabyte. Thanks for the illumination. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

09-25-2002, 07:58 PM	#4
John D. Administrator & Site Owner LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Little NE of Somewhere... Posts: 2,651 Thanks: 477 Thanked 515 Times in 128 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Wm. Pete Ebbink: <strong>Hello John D. and/or John S.; What's the chance of having the photo upload... </strong><hr></blockquote> Hi Pete, Sure - I can do that - give me a bit, though... Another alternative is to go to the "Member Gallery" and create an Album under your own name - and you can add/delete photos at your convenience. Also - that program and server will "resize" your photos on the fly for you automatically - so you can upload any size photo you would like.. You can access the Member Gallery by going here Select Member Gallery from the left hand link..... Best to you! John D.

09-25-2002, 08:27 PM	#6
John D. Administrator & Site Owner LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Little NE of Somewhere... Posts: 2,651 Thanks: 477 Thanked 515 Times in 128 Posts	Hi Ron..! Actually - there are three formats for each photo - depending on the size... When a user "uploads" a photo - the program creates a "thumbnail" which I have programmed in the size so folks don't have to worry about it.. The second iteration of the photo is the size for the screen at 640x4(xx) (depending on the deminsions. If the original photo is larger then 640x4(xx) - then the third photo rendition is kept, and can be seen by clicking on the image... Sooo - if Pete uploaded a photo at 2048 x XXX - folks can still see that by clicking on his photo, as I store all 3 Image sizes and formats... Best to you!! John D.

09-25-2002, 09:03 PM	#8
John D. Administrator & Site Owner LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Little NE of Somewhere... Posts: 2,651 Thanks: 477 Thanked 515 Times in 128 Posts	[quote]Originally posted by Ron Wood: <strong>Very enlightening, oh Guru of the Gigabyte..</strong><hr></blockquote> Sometimes, I got'ta tell you, Ron.... You crack me up [img]biggrin.gif[/img] <img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" /> <img src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" border="0" alt="[hiha]" />

09-26-2002, 02:03 PM	#9
Doubs User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Byron, Georgia Posts: 1,696 Thanks: 792 Thanked 1,679 Times in 552 Posts	I'd like to voice an opposing viewpoint... with my reasons, of course. I'd like to see the maximum file size DECREASED rather than increased. At work I have cable but at home I'm on a dial-up modem and large files take quite a long time to download, even when I'm connected at 48K. Secondly, pictures that exceed the width of the screen require scrolling to read the text and that can become a pain depending upon the message length. Pictures at 72 pixels per inch will give a 7 inch wide image at 504 pixels. An image that wide will easily fit on the screen and file size won't be excessive. There are very few circumstances that require anything larger and most images can be even smaller without the loss of detail that the poster wants viewers to see. All photo programs that come on home computers or are included with a digital camera that I've used have the capability of manipulating image size and pixel count. Actually, if a picture is recorded at 100 pixels per inch, reducing the pixels to 72ppi will also reduce the image size by 28%. With a little experimentation anyone should be able to discover how to reduce image size. There is always a loss of accutance (edge sharpness) when a picture is reduced in size. The program should also include a means of sharpening the image again. This is only my opinion and I'm sure it's going against the grain but huge pictures with large file sizes really aren't necessary if the basics of a computer photo program are used.