Image Sizes and Quality

Certainly. In that case area will be incremented by ~64% (or precisely 63.84%)

A correction: The 28% increment (length-wise) will be for both horizontal and vertical direction. Sorry for posting wrong information earlier.

RWHFY wrote:
and OT wrote:

Yes.

I have just uploaded another photograph to my Images Gallery. It was less than TWO MEGABYTES, but it was still too large. It was automatically resized by Nadreg's software (after two failed attempts by me to upload it) and I received a message:

Quote:

The original image was resized to fit within the maximum allowed resolution of 1024 x 1024 pixels.
Your Image has been created.

.

We haven't really discussed the resolution of an image which is key for the resulting file size. A higher resolution image (150 dpi or 300 dpi) results in a larger file and a lower resolution image (usually 72 dpi ) has a smaller file size.

For online posting of images in forums, 72 dpi (72 pixels per inch) is more than enough. IndiaMike has decided on resolution of 72 pixels per inch and also set the size limit at 1024 pixels.

Now if we go back to the Banyan tree photo mentioned in post #51, it is reduced to 768 pixels X 1024 pixels (limit) and with a resolution of 72 pixels/ inch the image would be 768/72 X 1024/72 which is 10.667 inches X 14.22 inches.

If one takes a ruler and measures the → Banyan Tree Photo ← it is exactly 10.667 X 14.22 and the file size is 360 Kilobytes, which is pretty good and easy to load.

There you go !!!

.

Why dont you resize your photos on your PC to less than 1MB and then upload them here. It is much faster then.


Very true !!!



Nadreg
May I suggest that IM could try a batch uploader such as that used by TravelPod which is really fast and resizes at the same time.



Good one KS!!!

In case final objective is to make the image section as single source for all images (those would be linked to posts), a batch uploader is very much required. Also there should be some easy way to get the image URL in IM to link in the post. I find it quite time consuming to check the the URL from the property of each snap and then pasting it in Image linking icon. If anyone knows any better way of doing it, please share your ideas.

Sorry, but I do not agree with batch uploading.

Can you imagine the misuse possible by advertisers?

My point was, if we keep present attachment feature with better and acceptable photo quality, I am not asking for any change in present upload policy in Image Gallery but if Image gallery is made only source of all images in IM, batch uploading is required.

kshil,
Check out the Images. They have just been improved.

Ahh, that explains the central dogma.

The photos for complementing posts and write ups in threads are uploaded for an altogether different reason.

But image section is primarily for images where the description part is not mandatory, and should not be.

PS - Can't we have an option for the attachment section where the poster is allowed to attach a bigger file (similar to the process in the image section) that is compressed by the system itself into a say 640X640 (or even better if 800X800) image file. The biggest deterring factor there is that one can't attach anything more than 100KB.

From my part I can say that if anything like this is done, I will never upload a photo in the third party site. Because, the quality of photo is not the main issue for me in threads. It was resizing them to that small 100KB prior to uploading was the main hindrance. As I have said earlier, it's only purpose is to complement the narration, not to exhibit photographic skills (save a few cases of discussion on photography itself).

Some posts discussing possible improvements to the way this site is administered have been deleted. Suggestions are welcomed, via the "Contact Us" button on the red bar at the foot of the page. Many thanks.

What leads to the belief that there will be rampant misuse of bulk uploading, Theyyam?

I do not believe it has caused any great problems on sites where it is permitted. I am sure that IM has abundant mechanisms in place to check any such misuse by advertisers or any other type of potential misusers of a bulk uploading facility.

OK, you are right. I have made my opinions clear. I will withdraw from this thread.

Peace Theyyam. Here is a bouquet of flowers from me.

So shall I for the time being!

There currently is no limit on the number of pics that can be uploaded into a single post. There seem to be two camps to whether there should be a limit or not. Those that like posts / threads with a large number of images, and those that don't. For the time being, unless I'm convinced otherwise or the members come to a consensus decision, I will leave it as no limit.

Just so that everyone is clear, there is only a 2MB limit on images that are uploaded to the site. There is no limitation on the original image's dimensions. However, once the image has been uploaded, the site will resize the image to have a maximum of 1024 pixels (in either width or height), and will apply some image compression algorithms to reduce the overall file size of the image.

That is correct. The main reason I said that is that once I build the functionality that will let you link easily from uploaded images to posts, threads, journals, etc., I will be able to control the presentation of the content. So, I would be able to let members select if they'd rather see the thumbnails instead of the larger images.

Along with the ability to easily link to images from the forums section, I would be implementing the ability to post images that are not shared with the community from within the Images section. This would allow you to upload images like scans of train timetables, or pictures of a road trip, that are better suited to be displayed from a post or thread like narrative.

The ability to bulk upload images would also have to be made available for this same purpose although, like the discussion about the number of images in a post, this is a decision that has been debated within the community.

I think we need to make the batch upload ability a "permission" that is earned based on your tenure with the site, similar to how the Chai and Chat forums are permissioned. This is not a perfect solution, so if anyone has a better suggestion do let me know.

Any reason you haven't checked it out?

I'll have to see if the software allows it. The code for the attachment of images in the posts is different from the Images section.