| Author | Messages | |
Jim Francis
Moderator
Moreno Valley, California
Foreman
Posts:119
Send Message
 | | 08/10/2008 5:01 PM |
| Please make sure your pictures are no more than 640 pixels wide before you post them. If you cannot, then please just post links to them.
This will help our members and guests who are limited to dial-up connections to the internet. This will also reduce the number of screens that have to be horizontally scrolled to view the post.
In addition, please be sure all of your posted pictures are .jpg and not .gif. The .gif format consumes too much band width.
Thank you for your compliance,
Jim Francis, Moderator | |
Skagit Valley Lines
Charter Member of The Roundhouse Irregulars | |
| james brodie
Rosedale East North Yorkshire
Brakeman
Posts:45
Send Message
| | 08/21/2008 2:00 PM |
| | Dear Sir, Was my photo alright?...Jim Brodie | | | |
| joe rusz
1st Class Member
Foreman
Posts:253
Send Message
| | 09/22/2008 11:38 PM |
| Jim,
Maybe I'm late to the party, but making your photo no more than 640 pixels wide won't assure you of getting it on MLS. The real issue is size, which I think is darn small--50k. I had to resize my photo after it was rejected for being too big.  " border=0> | | | |
| Dwight Ennis
Moderator
Milpitas, CA
Engineer
Posts:1466
Send Message
| | 09/23/2008 7:38 AM |
| Joe - the filesize limit only applies to photos attached to posts. It doesn't apply to photos posted in the usual way. The 640 pixel width limit was instituted many years ago when large photos caused the forum page to expand to accommodate them, and people had to scroll side-to-side to read all the posts on that page. It was also done to help out those on using dialup (and we still have quite a few), even after all these years). Limiting pixel size also limits filesize to some degree. Additionally, there's no easy way for moderators to spot a grossly oversized file without right-clicking on every single photo posted and manually checking filesize. Physically oversized photos are a lot easier to spot.  | |
Dwight Ennis
Milpitas, CA
SA #21
http://www.SantaCruzLumberCo.com
 | |
| smcgill
Easton Mass.
Brakeman
Posts:93
Send Message
| | 09/23/2008 3:00 PM |
| when I re size it and type 640 wide it's still big!!!
What are the other dimension do you need?
Sean | |
Did I say that out loud ?
He who dies with the most tools wins!! | |
| Dwight Ennis
Moderator
Milpitas, CA
Engineer
Posts:1466
Send Message
| | joe rusz
1st Class Member
Foreman
Posts:253
Send Message
| | 10/15/2008 5:42 PM |
| Dwight, I don't undrestand what your statementmeans ("the filesize limit only applies to photos attached to posts. It doesn't apply to photos posted in the usual way" ).
What is "the usual way?" Is there somewhere else, or someplace else to post my photos on MLS? The reason I am in a huff again is that a photo I posted recently, downsized to 49k, looked really crappy. Becuase the bundled HP photo fixing package I have on my new laptop doesn't offer the usual bells and whistles I have on my big computer, which runs Photoshop Elements, I am limited--for the time being--on what I can do. The HP program offers two resizing options, Resize for e-mail and resize for web, I believe. When I did this, both photos came out well beyond 50 or 70k (somwhere in the hundreds, I think).
There is a way to dictate the horizontal and vertical size, say 640 x whatever, but when you do that it still comes out pretty big. You can also dial in another number, which I don't understand.
I used the adjustable horizontal x vertical function and wound up with 200 x 180, or something, which came out around 50K or so. The photo didn't look very good, as you can see if you go to Buildings and my "Hello Walls!" post.
Sorry to be a crab apple, but this stuff make me nuts, especially when I see others putting up multi-photo posts and even videos. And me, with two brand new, high-horsepower computers (though not by choice).
joer | | | |
| Semper Vaporo
1st Class Member
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Engineer
Posts:1226
Send Message
| | 10/15/2008 7:38 PM |
| I should let Dwight answer for himself, but maybe a different persons vocabulary will help... The "Usual way" is to host the photo on an internet server (like Photobucket, or in your 1st class web space here on MLS) and then reference that location inside of a set of "img" tags... i.e.: [ img] url addy [ /img]. If you are using your 1st class web space or some server that you are paying for storage space, then the files size is up to you as YOU are paying for it. As a 1st class member you get to save your own memory allocation in your web space here on MLS by uploading an image directly to Shad's allocated web space for MLS. But to conserve that space, Shad has specified that the files must be smaller than some number (I can't remember what it is right now). A SEPARATE condition for putting photos in posting is that the image that people SEE is less than 640 pixels wide. This applies no matter where the file of data is stored or how big or small the FILE'S size is. There is some correlation of the size of the file and the size of the image on screen. A smaller physical image on screen generally means a smaller file size. But the file size can still be too big. There are methods to compress the data that defines an image... but not all images "compress" to the same extent. If there were NO compression and the image was 640 pixels wide by 480 pixels high (a common set of sizes) and each pixel requires 3 bytes of data to store the image in full color then the file size would be 640 X 480 X 3 = 921,600 bytes, (plus some overhead to define a few things). That number is bigger than what Shad has allowed for images HE is to host for 1st class members. To reduce the size of the file the image can be compressed by certain algorithms. Some, but not all, Image possessing programs (photo editors) allow you to specify the amount of compression. There used to be just one amount used by all programs and some programs still use only that one value. The actual amount of compression varies based on the content of the actual image. A one color image can be compressed a lot, an image where every pixel is a totally different color cannot be compressed much without losing some clarity of the image... (the algorithm tends to make similar colors to be the same color and it in effect says, "hey, all those pixels over there are nearly green, lets make them all just green and only remember one color for them all"). The program that rebuilds the image for display then has to make guesses as to what the actual colors really were and sometimes it does a lousy job of it! When you have a photo that is physically bigger than 640 pixels wide you must reduce it. You have to be careful with some programs because they ask what the physical size is in INCHES and don't really change the number of pixels! You might see that it is a 8 inch image so you change it to 4 inches, but that does not necessarily change the number of pixels. Make sure you are changing the number of pixels. AFTER you have the IMAGE down to less that 640 pixels, then you need to COMPRESS the "file" so that it is less than the forum's limit. Do that with programs that allow the compression to be varied. Pick a level of compression and look to see what size file it created. If it is still too big, do it again with a bit more compression, If it is less, do it again and use a bit less compression. You want to use the least amount of compression you can get a way with to keep the clarity of the image at the best you can. I recommend that you always go back to the original 640 wide file for each iteration in trying to compress the file. Do NOT ever save the compressed data into the original 640 wide file!!!! If you load and save and load and save into the same file over and over again, you lose clarity more each time. Another way to reduce the file size is to crop the image. Delete useless sky at the top and grass at the bottom and narrow the image by removing useless parts of the image on the sides. This can help in both reducing the visual width and that, in turn, can reduce the size of the file it is stored in. Ish! That was a lot of words... hope it is of some help. | |
 C. T. McCullough
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
SA #37469
| |
| Dwight Ennis
Moderator
Milpitas, CA
Engineer
Posts:1466
Send Message
| | 10/15/2008 9:40 PM |
| Semper just explained it better than I probably could. I'll therefore just comment upon, and try to clarify, the two methods of including photos in posts (though Semper also did an admirable job of explaining that as well). Method 1, which I termed "the usual way" is, as Semper said, to host your image on a web server somewhere (either in your 1st Class web space or on another web server of your choosing that allows links from the outside), and then to include the URL of that image in your post enclosed within the [ img] [ /img] tags. 1st Class members can also employ the "Insert Image" button on the toolbar of the new "Add Reply" editor. There is no filesize limit on such images though we ask people to keep filesize reasonable for the benefit of all. There is a restriction on physical image size in that it cannot be wider than 640 pixels. This method allows the most flexibility in image placement within the post as it allows for captioning, etc. Method 2 is available to 1st Class members only, and involves using the three fields at the bottom of the "Add Reply" page. By clicking the "Browse" buttons t the right of each field, one can navigate to an image on their har drive and "attach" it to their post. The image is uploaded to a separate area of the MLS server when one clicks the "Submit" button and won't appear in the post until it's actually posted. There is a filesize limit on such images (I think it's 60kb but I'm not 100% sure at the moment). Additionally, the 640 pixel width limit still applies. This method places the attached image(s) at the end of the post and offers no flexibility in placing text or captions after the image(s) - in short, you can't. Still, captions are not always necessary, and this method allows conservation of one's own web space wherever it is. There have been books written on image compression and the various algorithms used to achieve it, and on the tradeoff between filesize and image quality, and Semper has already provided a good brief explanation which I doubt I could improve upon. However... There is a way to dictate the horizontal and vertical size, say 640 x whatever, but when you do that it still comes out pretty big. You can also dial in another number, which I don't understand. That number may well be a compression percentage or compression value expressed some other way. Photoshop Elements allows several ways of setting compression - the usual Llow, Medium, High, Very High, and Maximum" quality variants, and a number from 0 to 100 with 0 being the most compression/worst image quality and 100 being the least compression/best image quality. You might want t save the same image several times while playing with this number and judge the results. | |
Dwight Ennis
Milpitas, CA
SA #21
http://www.SantaCruzLumberCo.com
| |
| DKRickman
1st Class Member
Salisbury, NC
Foreman
Posts:345
Send Message
| | 10/15/2008 9:57 PM |
| Posted By joe rusz on 10/15/2008 5:42 PM
What is "the usual way?" Is there somewhere else, or someplace else to post my photos on MLS? The reason I am in a huff again is that a photo I posted recently, downsized to 49k, looked really crappy. Becuase the bundled HP photo fixing package I have on my new laptop doesn't offer the usual bells and whistles I have on my big computer, which runs Photoshop Elements, I am limited--for the time being--on what I can do. The HP program offers two resizing options, Resize for e-mail and resize for web, I believe. When I did this, both photos came out well beyond 50 or 70k (somwhere in the hundreds, I think). joer
Joe, May I reccomend that you download GIMP and install it on your laptop? I think you'll find it more than powerful enough for your needs, with plenty of bells and whistles. Amazingly, it's gompletely free. I usually compare it to Photoshop, although a couple revisions older and less feature-rich. On the other hand, it's pretty efficient code, so the program doesn't eat up resources like some others will. | |
Kenneth Rickman - krickman1@carolina.rr.com
Salisbury, NC
If at first you don't succeed, use a bigger hammer! | |
| smcgill
Easton Mass.
Brakeman
Posts:93
Send Message
| | 10/16/2008 4:17 AM |
| | So the pic needs to be 640 pixels wide BY 480 pixels high! Thanks Sean | |
Did I say that out loud ?
He who dies with the most tools wins!! | |
| East Broad Top
Moderator
Centennial, CO
Conductor
Posts:601
Send Message
| | 10/16/2008 9:02 AM |
| Note that the height of the photo (in pixels) will change depending on the aspect ratio of the image itself. For instance, if a photo is shot to a 4:3 aspect ratio (typical for point-and-shoot cameras), and you don't do any cropping, then your height will be 480 pixels if your width is 640. If your camera shoots in a wider aspect ratio, the height will be smaller. (ex., uncropped pics from my camera come out to 640 x 426.) There is no limit on the height of an image, just the width. So, if you have a vertical shot, you can set that width to 640, and its height will be somewhere around 900, depending on aspect ratio. Note: When posting larger vertical pics, try to use even more compression so to keep file sizes comparable to the smaller horizontal shots.
I use Photoshop to compress my shots, and enter "4" on quality (out of 12). I've found that keeps file sizes fairly small (generally between 70 and 100K), and still retains the majority of the information I'd like to keep in the photo.
Later,
K | |
Tuscarora Railroad
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| joe rusz
1st Class Member
Foreman
Posts:253
Send Message
| | 10/16/2008 1:16 PM |
| | Thanks all. Now I'll have to digest all that information... | | | |
| joe rusz
1st Class Member
Foreman
Posts:253
Send Message
| | 10/16/2008 1:55 PM |
| | Ken, I Googled GIMP and it sounds promising. But is it compatible with Vista Home Premium edition, 64 bit? I am trying to acclimate myself to Vista--on two new computers--after years of XP. I've read all sorts of horror stories about compatibility issues and worry about screwing up things that I already don't understand. By the way, I didn't voluntarily buy two computers. The 10-year-old desk top in California got choked to death by all of my photos and other apps, while the Maui laptop (about as old), has a nearly-dead CMOS battery that is hidden deep in its bowels and appears to be costly to replace (about $95 by a local computer tech). Hence, a new HP with lots of power. And, ugh, Vista. | | | |
| DKRickman
1st Class Member
Salisbury, NC
Foreman
Posts:345
Send Message
| | 10/16/2008 6:03 PM |
| Joe,
I can't comment on Vista from personal expereince, but here is a quote from the GIMP website.
"GIMP should run on any NT-based version of Windows (NT4, 2000, XP or Vista). Older GIMP versions (2.0.x) could also work with older versions of Windows such as Windows 95 but they are not supported anymore. The amount of memory can be an important factor, especially if you intend to work on large images. A minimum of 128 MB of RAM is recommended, but the more RAM the better."
Also, I am using it here in both Mandriva Linux 64 bit, and Windows XP Pro 64 bit, both without any hassle whatsoever. So I woulod hazzard a guess that you'll have no problems. | |
Kenneth Rickman - krickman1@carolina.rr.com
Salisbury, NC
If at first you don't succeed, use a bigger hammer! | |
| joe rusz
1st Class Member
Foreman
Posts:253
Send Message
| | 10/16/2008 8:28 PM |
| | Okey-dokey! | | | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 |
|