Hey Guest,
Welcome, Join our awesome community where you can discuss on various topics
or Create an Account


Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.

Dear WRConnected Users: WOW! Our fourth "birthday"! We've grown so much over the past four years, and much of that is because of you, the amazing WRConnected Users. But like any other website, there are costs associated with running it. As some of you may already know, we accept donations. Some of you have made donations (thank you!). This helps cover some of the background costs associated with running this site. If every user were to donate $1 we would more than cover our yearly expenses. If WRConnected is useful to you, take a minute and help keep it online for another year. Any donation is helpful. Thank you.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Image Hosting
#16
(10-25-2015, 05:09 AM)Spokes Wrote: There is sort of built in hosting available.  I believe anyone can attach an image to their post.

I'm not sure an auto-compress option is available, although if it were, that would be ideal.

I can add something that re-sizes the image to always fit on the page, but I dont think that's what you're looking for

For the benefit of those of us who are on restrictive data plans I'd like to see something that automatically creates thumbnails out of large images and only displays the image in its original size when the user clicks the thumbnail. While I appreciate the need for some people to post a dozen large images at a time, that sort of stuff can quickly exhaust the monthly quota of sub-GB data plans.

Thank you.
Reply
#17
(10-25-2015, 07:26 AM)ookpik Wrote:
(10-25-2015, 05:09 AM)Spokes Wrote: There is sort of built in hosting available.  I believe anyone can attach an image to their post.

I'm not sure an auto-compress option is available, although if it were, that would be ideal.

I can add something that re-sizes the image to always fit on the page, but I dont think that's what you're looking for

For the benefit of those of us who are on restrictive data plans I'd like to see something that automatically creates thumbnails out of large images and only displays the image in its original size when the user clicks the thumbnail. While I appreciate the need for some people to post a dozen large images at a time, that sort of stuff can quickly exhaust the monthly quota of sub-GB data plans.

Thank you.

I think a suitable resize will achieve the same, those normally will save with a moderate compression ratio.  If we were to resize images to, say, 1200 pixels (largest dimension), it would reduce the data size and also speed up loading of photos.

(Testing image attachment with this post ...)


Attached Files Image(s)
   
Reply
#18
That seems to work pretty well! If we can turn on resizing, I think it'll be a great solution for us.
Reply
#19
(10-25-2015, 12:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I think a suitable resize will achieve the same, those normally will save with a moderate compression ratio.  If we were to resize images to, say, 1200 pixels (largest dimension), it would reduce the data size and also speed up loading of photos.

(Testing image attachment with this post ...)

1. That sample is about 500kB in size. Some people are still on 100MB/month data plans.
2. Even if data isn't an issue, people still have to physically scroll vertically through a series of images.
(3. Don't get me started on people who then reflexively quote the entire post, requiring readers to do a repeat scroll through the entire picture set, just to add a "thank you" or to comment on one of the series.)

One can ask people to be more considerate of other peoples' budgets, time, fingers, etc. but it's usually an exercise in futility and it's never as effective as automatically generating thumbnails.
Reply
#20
That sample wasn't resized by the server. Smile

I suggested a 1200 pixel maximum, but it was only a suggestion. That said, 500 KB is still far smaller than the full-size images that get posted from time to time.

If automatic thumbnail generation is an option, it's great. But if it's not, let's choose an option that works for most people. There surely aren't a lot of people on WRC with 100 MB data plans today still. But if we need to find out, a survey would be a good way to determine what size images are best.
Reply
#21
If we're taking a vote, I vote "no" on the auto-thumbnail option. I hate having to click on every tiny photo, I like scrolling through photos like a gallery in forums. Personal preference, I know, but your preference is thumbnails, and mine is full-size images, just stating that and adding to the discussion. I can't believe anyone would be on a 100 MByte/month plan. I burn through 100 MByte/day while roaming in the US!

Nobody should be posting 12 MByte images straight out of their camera (and they can't, because of the 500 kbyte limit), but as it is the 500 kbyte lmiit is already extremely frustrating for those of us who like to take high-resolution images and share them with the community. The result of forcing this sort of thing is that people like me are just going to stop posting photos here.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
#22
Alternatively, you can also disable auto-loading of images in Netscape Navitagor, and then press this button if you want to see them, to save on your monthly usage: [Image: net_images.gif]
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
#23
(10-25-2015, 09:43 PM)Canard Wrote: I hate having to click on every tiny photo
I used the term "thumbnail" to express a concept. I'm not suggesting that "tiny" should literally be the size of a thumb nail. It's possible to create fairly large "thumbnails" that use relatively little data.  For instance a VGA (640x480) sized photo can be 50kB to 100kB. VGA is more than large enough to see what's in the photo and decide if you want to see more detail by clicking.

In any case smartphone screens are small. All that detail, and the large amounts of data behind it, are wasted on a 5" screen.

Quote:I like scrolling through photos like a gallery in forums.
For you it's enjoyment. For others it's tedium. And it's bloody torture when some inconsiderate idiots then mindlessly quote that stream. (IMO)

Quote:I can't believe anyone would be on a 100 MByte/month plan.
There are several prepaid plans that include only 100MB to 1GB per month. Not everyone spends $50+/month on their smartphone. Furthermore those plans are often 3G only. That's more than fast enough for general use but not for lengthy streams of large photos.

In any case even those on 1Gbit, unlimited data plans at home or in the office still have to scroll through possibly pages of photo streams to get to some actual discussion of the topic.

Quote:the 500 kbyte lmiit is already extremely frustrating for those of us who like to take high-resolution images and share them with the community
No one is preventing you from sharing 12+MP photos with the rest of the community. You can do that by hosting them on any of myriad photo sites and link to them through "thumbnails" here. That strikes me as a reasonable compromise that accommodates the needs of all users.

Quote:The result of forcing this sort of thing is that people like me are just going to stop posting photos here.
Nobody is "forcing" anyone to do anything. I'm simply expressing my point of view as someone who enjoys these photos but who (1) isn't a photography fanatic and (2) doesn't have unlimited resources. And no, I'm not threatening to stop participating in WRC if I don't get my way.
Reply
#24
There's a mobile version of this web site is it not? If so we could make pictures manually downloadable there. I do not have issues with my data plan limits, but I can see that I wouldn't want to waste valuable bits downloading by default pictures I won't even enjoy in my tiny screen. On my laptop/tablet I do like and appreciate large pictures. I think the present 500KB limit is adequate for this purpose.
Reply
#25
Note that the 500 KB limit is only for uploaded photos; if you use links, they can be any size you want (I think).

An auto-resize function for the upload would be very handy, though, it would save me the manual resizing step before uploading.
Reply
#26
All I wanted is to be able to upload >500kb images somehow....
Reply
#27
(10-25-2015, 09:09 PM)tomh009 Wrote: That sample wasn't resized by the server.  Smile  

I suggested a 1200 pixel maximum, but it was only a suggestion.  That said, 500 KB is still far smaller than the full-size images that get posted from time to time.

If automatic thumbnail generation is an option, it's great.  But if it's not, let's choose an option that works for most people.  There surely aren't a lot of people on WRC with 100 MB data plans today still.  But if we need to find out, a survey would be a good way to determine what size images are best.

Is the test image you posted 1200px?

My understanding is that limiting the image would just change the dimensions, not image size.
Reply
#28
(10-26-2015, 06:50 AM)ookpik Wrote:
Quote:I like scrolling through photos like a gallery in forums.
For you it's enjoyment. For others it's tedium. And it's bloody torture when some inconsiderate idiots then mindlessly quote that stream. (IMO)

In my mind, you lost all credibility with this one statement.  This doesn't fly here.
Reply
#29
(10-26-2015, 08:35 AM)Markster Wrote: All I wanted is to be able to upload >500kb images somehow....

I don't think we're going to give unlimited space for image hosting, there needs to be some limit, but ya given camera resolution and image size, that is a little small.

If you want to upload huge files though, there are image hosting sites for that.
Reply
#30
(10-26-2015, 09:59 AM)Spokes Wrote: Is the test image you posted 1200px?

My understanding is that limiting the image would just change the dimensions, not image size.

The image above is 900x1200px and ~400kB in data. Using Irfanview to reduce it to VGA size gets it down to 65kB data as below yet it's still quite viewable.

[Image: 166lnc3.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links

              Advertise