file size and image size limits?

grouch · January 03, 2015, 05:08:31 PM

What are the file size and image size limits for uploads to the gallery?

I've looked but can't find that information. Uploaded a 795x1024 image, 204 KB and it was scaled to 640x824 at 77.38 KB. I'd rather not burden the server with scaling the images when I can do that before uploading.

Thanks!

Jeff · January 03, 2015, 05:17:21 PM

You are only allowed to upload photos that are going to be used directly into your posts according to posting rules. If the photo is not going to be placed in a post, don;t upload it. So, no need to worry about burdening the server. It can handle it in the amounts allowed just fine

Welcome to the forum.

grouch · January 05, 2015, 07:04:30 AM

Thanks for the welcome, Jeff. That was a really fast reply.

I've read and believe I understand the rules and reasons about photos. (There are lots of annoying holey buckets and "Sorry, image not available" placeholders where photos used to be in fora scattered all over the Internet). It's great that pages here don't have to wait to fetch images from two dozen places around the world before displaying.

My last uploads weren't changed much so maybe I'm getting closer to what the system wants. Have to use Gimp on all the photos anyway, since they're typically 8M to 12M, so I might as well try to make them sizes that are acceptable without further processing.

Would be nice to have the images in posts be links to higher resolution images in the galleries. Of course, it would also be nice if the trees could be fetched from the hillsides by just whistling for them, too. ;)

BTW, thanks for having such an incredible storehouse of information with such diverse, experienced, friendly folks.

pineywoods · January 05, 2015, 12:13:36 PM

Quote from: grouch on January 05, 2015, 07:04:30 AM
Would be nice to have the images in posts be links to higher resolution images in the galleries. Of course, it would also be nice if the trees could be fetched from the hillsides by just whistling for them, too. ;)

Ask and ye shall recieve...That's precisely the way it works. There are no pics imbedded in the post. What's there is a link to the original uploaded file in your gallery. Keeps the post size down to a minimum for faster indexing and loading. So once you post with the link, don't go mucking around in your gallery, like deleting files or moving them around. Ole Jeff has put a lifetime of hard work into this place and it shows. I've been on here 8 years and I'm still running across little niceties
As to whistleing up the trees, you must be a flatlander and don't know about cutting the trees into logs and letting them roll down the hill to the mill ;D

Jeff · January 05, 2015, 12:56:04 PM

Actually, that's not quite right. ;) The image that appears in the post is the highest quality image available after the upload and resizing process. We do not have the means to store ever increasing sized original photos on our servers. It would be great if we could, but unless someone wants to make a huge financial grant for a multi-terabyte storage drive with backup, the size we have is what it will be.

You can move your photos around into different albums you create in your gallery and not effect the links on the forum. The physical link to the file does not change, only the virtual location created in a database entry. You must NEVER EVER delete a file once used in a post though, as that will break the photo link in the post. You can't link to something that is not there.

grouch · January 06, 2015, 01:00:04 PM

Quote from: Jeff on January 05, 2015, 12:56:04 PM
The image that appears in the post is the highest quality image available after the upload and resizing process. We do not have the means to store ever increasing sized original photos on our servers. It would be great if we could, but unless someone wants to make a huge financial grant for a multi-terabyte storage drive with backup, the size we have is what it will be.

Doesn't look like there's any upper limit on photos and videos. My previous camera averaged about 1.4 MB per image of 2048 x 1536; my current one uses 8 MB to 12 MB for 4672 x 3104 and newer cameras even more.

It looks like 2 distinct problems are being solved by the upload processing:

1. File size must be limited or storage needs become unlimited.

2. Image size must be limited or posts and threads become unreadable.

Those *could* be separated, if desired. Post-upload processing could ignore image size and only deal with file size. Page display could then limit image size while making the image a link to the original file in the gallery.

I know, if it ain't broke don't fix it. :D

beenthere · January 06, 2015, 01:16:46 PM

Right!! It ain't broke.

Jeff · January 06, 2015, 01:24:21 PM

100101000111100011

beenthere · January 06, 2015, 01:43:31 PM

152035

Jeff · January 06, 2015, 01:49:29 PM

09232000

beenthere · January 06, 2015, 02:08:11 PM

That's 100011001101111010000000

grouch · January 06, 2015, 02:14:02 PM

Quote from: beenthere on January 06, 2015, 02:08:11 PM
That's 100011001101111010000000

Or a date in the confusing format of mmddyyyy.

grouch · January 06, 2015, 02:17:33 PM

Aha!

Dilbert from 2000-09-23

And I didn't even have my secret decoder ring at hand!

Jeff · January 06, 2015, 03:00:50 PM

Nice try, but no.

beenthere · January 06, 2015, 05:11:05 PM

Jeff found those when he was cleaning out his computer... left overs. Harley wouldn't even touch 'em.