What's new
What's new

Question for Millacron: Why does PM need to limit image size so much?

rimcanyon

Diamond
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Location
Salinas, CA USA
PM has some of the most restrictive limits on image size of any forum on the internet. If I upload a photo, this is the size when I select “full size”:

45883851-58EC-4966-B3C4-AC448135E6D8.jpg

Forum software has reduced the original 3MB image to this size.

The question is why? Why not set more reasonable defaults for file size. I know that there are some workarounds, I could save this in my personal folder and I could edit the file before uploading to reduce its size, but why not restore the original forum behavior that did not do this, and allowed large, readable images to be posted?

Storage is so cheap these days, that there is no reason not to allow large images.

-Dave
 

EPAIII

Diamond
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Location
Beaumont, TX, USA
As to why photos are limited in size, I have to assume that you have not used a forum where 16 and 20 mega pixel photos are posted in the text. Around ten or more years ago, the forum software and the photo hosting services did not limit the size and many people, not aware of the consequences of such large photos just uploaded them directly from the camera.

When such large photos were posted, most, actually ALL computer screens were just too small to display them in full so the viewer only saw a small part of the photo at one time. The viewer was forced to scroll left and right and up and down to see the entire photo but never all of it at once. In addition to that, those very large photos determined the horizontal width of the entire post. So, the text was also displayed just as wide as the photo and the reader had to continuously scroll left and right to read each and every line of text. It was a royal PITA and produced many complaints. Forum moderators sometimes took action against persons who posted those full size photos. I avoided reading them unless there was a very special reason to do so.

Somewhere along the line, the folks at vBulletin, who wrote the forum software added a feature that automatically reduced the size of the photos. And the image hosting services also took measures to do likewise, but not all of them did it the same way. IMHO, the above irritation of the users of the forums was more the reason for this, not storage space which has become so very cheap.

As to what can be done about it, the answer today is the same as it was back before the software automatically reduced the size of the displayed photos. Before you upload a photo for a post, on your computer REDUCE the horizontal size of that photo to 800 pixels or so. When you do that, the forum or image hosting software will not reduce it any further and it will display around full size or a little bit less on most computer screens.

It is easy to reduce the pixel size of any photo. I first create a copy of the photo on my hard drive or other storage location. Then I open that copy in Microsoft Paint. This can be done in the directory window by right clicking on the file name and choosing Open With / Paint. I click on Resize, then Pixels, then enter the value "800" in the horizontal box. The vertical size will change in proportion to the horizontal change and all will look proper. Then save it and you are ready to upload that reduced resolution copy.

I always do this before uploading a photo and they display in a nice size in both this forum and all the others that I use. Here's an example of a photo that was 16 mega pixels when it came from the camera.

attachment.php


This photo is hosted with this board's own image hosting. It was uploaded with a horizontal resolution of 800 pixels and I just copy the BB code under the image to past in my posts. I avoid those other image holting services that seem to want you to use reduced size "thumbnails" in your post. I find these thumbnails to be super irritating because they force you to go to another window to see the photo. When I am reading the text I want to have the photo IN THE TEXT and FULL SIZE. I don't want to be forced to go back and forth between different windows.

Besides, Photobucket showed us what happens when you use a separate image hosting site. They change their rules and all the posts that used those images that were hosted on Photobucket are no longer visible in the post. The images hosted by this BB's own software will be here as long as this BB is. It may not be completely as easy to use as some of the others, but it is permanent and free.

Some time ago I posted illustrated instructions for using the built in image hosting. It is not hard. A search should find that post.
 

rimcanyon

Diamond
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Location
Salinas, CA USA
As to what can be done about it, the answer today is the same as it was back before the software automatically reduced the size of the displayed photos. Before you upload a photo for a post, on your computer REDUCE the horizontal size of that photo to 800 pixels or so. When you do that, the forum or image hosting software will not reduce it any further and it will display around full size or a little bit less on most computer screens.

I really did not post the question for a suggestion on how to work around it. That is the point, the forum software makes it difficult. If the limit was more reasonable, like 1 megapixel, and the forum software reduced images to that size, I would be happy. The point is that it does not. And your suggestion does not work on any of the devices I post from: Mac, IPad or IPhone.
 

eKretz

Diamond; Mod Squad
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Location
Northwest Indiana, USA
I prefer the thumbnails version of uploading photos at PM. That way you can click the thumb and scroll through all the posted images. You can also then click any one of the images and get the high resolution version, which you can't do when you post the image without the thumbnail. Those "full" images are pretty low resolution and it can sometimes be difficult to make out details.
 

thermite

Diamond
I really did not post the question for a suggestion on how to work around it. That is the point, the forum software makes it difficult. If the limit was more reasonable, like 1 megapixel, and the forum software reduced images to that size, I would be happy. The point is that it does not. And your suggestion does not work on any of the devices I post from: Mac, IPad or IPhone.

Mac stuff should JFW with a screenshot, as my *BSD Unix does.

Size it on your own screen to fit however wide PM displays, same screen.

Take a screenshot, save with useful title, upload, save.

THEN VIEW it yerself! If not a good fit, try again.

Finally, edit-out any rejects before moving on.

Edit capability means it should not take a LOT of time experimenting and deleting before you know what works for YOUR environment.

Not for some other member's OS and tools of choice.


"Page two":

It isn't "just" that graphics files need waaaaay more storage space than text.

EVERY TIME a(ny) viewer opens a page with a graphic?

It has to be served over the bandwidth budget. Every time. Every viewer.

Server has a caching helper already, but it is a BIG site with lots of visitors.

Browser caching, VIEWER's end can help, too. Just not by much.

Those fotos hosted on Photof**kit, Imgur, etc?

Do NOT travel over PM's bandwidth budget. They bypass PM, move from host to your box by some other routing PM need not pay for.

Storage is cheap. Bandwidth is dear.
 

rimcanyon

Diamond
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Location
Salinas, CA USA
Mac stuff should JFW with a screenshot, as my *BSD Unix does.

...

Storage is cheap. Bandwidth is dear.

Bill, the point is, it does not work like BSD Unix when posting images from a Mac, Ipad or Iphone. At least not now. It used to.

The images forum software create are so small that all detail is lost. I used to be able to post images that were 1000 x 1000. Not now. The image at the start of the thread is what the forum software reduces images to, when posted from a MAC. Even if the image is first reduced to 800 x 600. I have done a lot of experimenting trying to find an easy solution. No go. If I post an image on Iphone, it comes from Photos, with no opportunity to reduce size or make any adjustments. On a Mac, the photos must first be "exported" to jpegs, because the forum software does not allow direct uploading from the Photos library. When the image is exported it can then be reduced in size using Preview. Even then, an 800 x 600 image gets converted by forum software into something ridiculously small. Both the Photos and Preview apps allow one to change image quality from high to low or something in between. The *only* way I can get a larger image from a Mac is to export it from Photos, specifying image quality low, open it in Preview, change the size, export it to another file specifying image quality low again. Then I need to load it into my PM personal image folder, then I can reference it in a post. How many steps is that, I have lost count? Not only that, but it is hit or miss, sometimes it does not work.

I would really like Millacron to get this fixed, and make it easy to post reasonable sized images.

-Dave
 

texasgeartrain

Titanium
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Location
Houston, TX
It isn't "just" that graphics files need waaaaay more storage space than text.

EVERY TIME a(ny) viewer opens a page with a graphic?

It has to be served over the bandwidth budget. Every time. Every viewer.

Server has a caching helper already, but it is a BIG site with lots of visitors.

Browser caching, VIEWER's end can help, too. Just not by much.

Those fotos hosted on Photof**kit, Imgur, etc?

Do NOT travel over PM's bandwidth budget. They bypass PM, move from host to your box by some other routing PM need not pay for.

Storage is cheap. Bandwidth is dear.

There's a catch 22 though with photobucket. Imagine if a site suddenly has a change of policy. Now look at all the wrecked threads.

Or imagine a guy gets pissed and wrecks his off site photo account. Ever here of that :D ? Now all those are gone.

I think the bandwidth consideration is legit, but off site hosts add a secondary failure point as well. Might be the current upload size is a decent middle ground compromise. Maybe with tech always improving the bandwidth costs will reduce as well.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2018
Location
Airstrip One, Oceania
I would really like Millacron to get this fixed, and make it easy to post reasonable sized images.
It is "fixed", you just don't know what you are doing, I've been using an antique Macbook for browsing for almost two years now. Random photo ...

View attachment 300207

It puts a thumbnail in the post so you don't bother other readers. If they want to see the large picture, right mouse button, choose "open in another tab/window" and bob's yer uncle. I don't like the overlay thing much, but that is available also. Just click the thumbnail.

Learn how to use your tools before complaining.
 

EPAIII

Diamond
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Location
Beaumont, TX, USA
So basically you are saying that Mac, IPad and IPhone products are not as capable as my years old desk top computer or even several generations of desk top computers that I have used before this one. I am real glad I did not rush out to spend thousands of dollars on such products.

Out of curiosity, just how does the image that I posted as an example look in your device? And what device are you actually using. I would like to know. Does it display with the complete image on the screen? Or do you have to scroll up/down or left/right or both? How much? I have an Android phone and my image does not show up in my previous post. I do not know why. But your small sized image does. ???

I was only trying to explain the history of this situation so that others could understand where we are at. As for working around it, the more people who do that, but better off we all are. So, what's wrong with that? You are not obligated to do it if you don't want to.

I would agree that the BB software should work better. I have actually tried sending suggestions to vBulletin several times, but they simply ignore anything from anyone other than the ones who PAY for that software. That would be our BB's host here (Milacron/Practical Machinist). Perhaps you can get them to send in some suggestions. But I don't know just how much Milacron can do about this.

PS: One meagpixel is still too big. You need something closer to 1/2 megapixel (800 X 600 = 480,000 pixels) for it to fit properly on computer screens. And less than even that for those devices that you mention.

vbulletin.com



I really did not post the question for a suggestion on how to work around it. That is the point, the forum software makes it difficult. If the limit was more reasonable, like 1 megapixel, and the forum software reduced images to that size, I would be happy. The point is that it does not. And your suggestion does not work on any of the devices I post from: Mac, IPad or IPhone.
 

rimcanyon

Diamond
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Location
Salinas, CA USA
Here's the same image posted earlier in thumbnail format. Doesn't make a difference:

IMG_0754-1.jpg

The forum software reduced the size from 410KB (960x1280 pixels) to 12.9KB.

Here is the same image as just posted, but saved in my album,image quality reduced to least, AND reduced in size to 800x1067:

IMG_0754-1b.jpg

Now, why can't the forum software do that, instead of reducing the picture to something too small to be useful?
 

EPAIII

Diamond
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Location
Beaumont, TX, USA
If it IS the forum software, just how do you explain my image in post #5? It was reduced to 800 pixels wide before it was uploaded. I used this BB's own image hosting: it is stored in the same server that this text is in. There is no other image hosting site involved. It displays on my computer screen FULL SIZE, 800 pixels wide, not in miniature.

I do not think it is the BB software that is reducing your images. Are you sure you are actually reducing them to 800 pixels wide? Perhaps it is your Mac or image hosting service that is doing this.

In the past I have found that somewhere around 900 or 1000 pixel width does trigger the size reduction. But not the 800 pixel width. That is why I suggest using the 800 pixel width.

You say, "If I post an image on Iphone, it comes from Photos, with no opportunity to reduce size or make any adjustments." I change the size FIRST, using Microsoft Paint. It is EASY to do so. I do this to a COPY of the original photo so I still have the full resolution one. Then I upload it; the already reduced size one, not the original. The size reduction is NOT part of the upload process. It has been a few years since I used an Apple computer, but surely they have a way to alter the size of an image. Likewise for the other devices you talk about. Perhaps you need to spend 5 or 10 minutes at an APP store.



Bill, the point is, it does not work like BSD Unix when posting images from a Mac, Ipad or Iphone. At least not now. It used to.

The images forum software create are so small that all detail is lost. I used to be able to post images that were 1000 x 1000. Not now. The image at the start of the thread is what the forum software reduces images to, when posted from a MAC. Even if the image is first reduced to 800 x 600. I have done a lot of experimenting trying to find an easy solution. No go. If I post an image on Iphone, it comes from Photos, with no opportunity to reduce size or make any adjustments. On a Mac, the photos must first be "exported" to jpegs, because the forum software does not allow direct uploading from the Photos library. When the image is exported it can then be reduced in size using Preview. Even then, an 800 x 600 image gets converted by forum software into something ridiculously small. Both the Photos and Preview apps allow one to change image quality from high to low or something in between. The *only* way I can get a larger image from a Mac is to export it from Photos, specifying image quality low, open it in Preview, change the size, export it to another file specifying image quality low again. Then I need to load it into my PM personal image folder, then I can reference it in a post. How many steps is that, I have lost count? Not only that, but it is hit or miss, sometimes it does not work.

I would really like Millacron to get this fixed, and make it easy to post reasonable sized images.

-Dave
 

thermite

Diamond
It is "fixed", you just don't know what you are doing, I've been using an antique Macbook for browsing for almost two years now. Random photo ...

View attachment 300207

It puts a thumbnail in the post so you don't bother other readers. If they want to see the large picture, right mouse button, choose "open in another tab/window" and bob's yer uncle. I don't like the overlay thing much, but that is available also. Just click the thumbnail.

Learn how to use your tools before complaining.

^^^ THIS ^^^

This is the "best practice" way to utilize the toolset.

Even EG's larger .jpg image was not huge, yet has good resolution when saved offline and zoomed very much larger yet.

I say again. Do more experimenting. Take notes.

Repeat what works.
 

MattiJ

Titanium
Joined
May 31, 2017
It's easy to resize in Preview on Mackletosh. Viewing photos on the phone and you're complaining about size ? Hmm.

Your example photo is marginal size even on 8 year old iphone 6 screen. On a 3840 x 2160 computer screen it is a decent thumbnail size.
 








 
Top