Image size

[AnnaK]

We frequently get images which are so huge that you have to scroll right to left and up and down just to see the picture. When a large image is posted it skews the subsequent messages in the thread and makes the topic very difficult to read.

Is there an option in the forum software which limits image size? 640 x 480 is plenty big; 320 x 240 works well enough to show context and even details.

There's a Website, http://tinypic.com/, to which you can upload pictures and have the resized automatically. It sure would enhance reading and following image heavy threads if the images were more manageable.

 

[frustratedpoolmom]

Pic size for me is a issue too. Whenever photo problems come up I recommend they use Photobucket or similar site to post their pics.

 

[waste]

THANK YOU!! for mentioning this Anna! :bowdown:

I always just figured that I was too computer stupid to reduce the size of the images

 

[AnnaK]

Ted!!!! Good to hear from you. How are things going for you? Are you packing yet?

Image size is something that can be regulated by the phpBB software. When a user posts a link to an image the board software reads the link and imports the image for display inside the message. If the image at the original point of origin is large, it'll come in to the message large. Consider our avatar images: they're limited to 120x120 pixels with a max file size of 9.7 KB. If you upload something larger it gets rejected. All of us who have an avatar did manage to figure out how to manipulate the size.

It's a similar process with inline photos. The software can require a maximum size in dimensions as well as in file size. Something that's 640x480 will range generally somewhere between 23-95 KB depending on resolution and content but that really is just an estimate.

Let's test it.

Below is an image at 726x514 pixels. It has a very high res and the file size is ~382 KB. Given the dimensions it SHOULD NOT run across the browser window.

Here is a picture that's 640x388 and ~52 KB. It should be smaller than the one above but just as clear.

If the forum software were set to limit image dimensions both pictures would come in the same size because the software would scale them down to fit the parameters. However, in the absence of limiting parameters the software will import images at the default dimensions, regardless of the size of the image at its origin, and that can (and does) lead to sloshing over browser edges.

Image sizing is one of my very favorite pet peeves We tend to take photos at the camera's preset resolution (because most of us don't know enough to change that) and we upload the picture without giving much thought to size. Those folks lucky enough to have a broadband connection send and receive pictures easily enough, one of the joys of the Internet. But those of us in the boonies who are on dialup modems (argh!!!!) have to learn this esoteric stuff because uploading and downloading an image can take so long that you need to pack a lunch, that you can do a load of wash and iron it before the picture arrives. And when it does finally show up it's all over the monitor and it messes with everything that comes after it and it's a PITA.

Sigh. Okay, I got that off my chest.

 

[JasonLion]

I made a change that will cut off the right hand side of any image from an external web site larger than 800 pixels. If you click on the image, the right hand side of the image appears (and the post becomes very wide as it was before). This doesn't currently work with images that are uploaded as attachments, that seems to be a little trickier.

 

[AnnaK]

A nice and useful change, Jason. Good work and thank you very much!

 

[chem geek]

Jason,

Can you be a little less aggressive with that size. Look at this post which now has some images cut off or no longer side-by-side (for the traditional industry HOCl vs. pH compared to what happens with CYA charts). I like the idea, but it may not need to be quite so extreme. Then again, I always set my browser to be almost as wide as my computer screen.

Thanks,
Richard

 

[JasonLion]

Alright, here is a different way of doing it. This version scales the images down to a max of 800 pixels, showing the entire image. This doesn't work on IE 6, but should work on anything newer than that (I hope).

chem geek, the large images work now, but the two images on one line sections only work if you make the browser window wide enough. That seems like a reasonable compromise.

 

[AnnaK]

When I adjust my browser window to full screen the comparison images in Richard's post show side-by-side. When I make the window to the size I prefer those images are now one below the other but the other graphics still show fully without being cut off by the right side of the browser window. I use FF 3.6. I can test with Safari if you'd like me to.

 

[JasonLion]

I have Safari and it is fine. It would be nice to hear from someone who is running IE to double check that it works there.

 

[Bama Rambler]

I'm running IE-8 at home and it works fine. Even if I squeeze my browser down they still display side by side but then I have the scroll bar show up.

 

[chem geek]

chem geek, the large images work now, but the two images on one line sections only work if you make the browser window wide enough. That seems like a reasonable compromise.

Yes, that's fine and was my expectation before (i.e. if the window isn't wide enough, the side-by-side images could be forced to two rows). Thanks -- it looks good now.

 

[PaulR]

The side-by-side images looked okay with IE 7 as well. That thread still requires scrolling, but that's okay.
--paulr

 

[JasonLion]

Images in attachments are now fixed as well.

 

[AnnaK]

Thank you very much!