Based on your feedback it was time for us to increase the attachment limit. Previously it was set at 10MB and many members had reached their limit. We have increase the limit 500% to 50MB per member now. Upgraded accounts still have unlimited upload space.
Also, just as an FYI I wanted to share with you how the settings work with uploads. I just changed the max file size that can be uploaded to be more inline with modern digital cameras. You can now upload files that are up to 3MB in size. They will be processed down to a 1600x1600 pixel image and the original file will be discarded. That means even though the upload was 3MB it's not going to take 3MB of your storage space. It will end up taking more like 100kb or less of space when it's been processed down to 1600x1600 size.
I hope these changes help eliminate some limits that members were hitting when trying to contribute to our community. For now, if you need more then 50MB (or just want the cool stickers) you will have to upgrade!
Thanks for the info, Andy. Since the ultimate resolution will still be 1600 x 1600, I will continue to make mine that size in Photoshop after converting from the RAW file. That’s still plenty big on my 1920 x 1080 display.
__________________ Vaughan
A sixth sense (I lack the other five) tells me that I am in serious difficulties.Oscar Levant
Yeah, I think 1600x1600 is a good size for the archives. I did not want to set this to a size that was too big and cause people to fill up their quota too much but since we are (or already have) creating the largest archive of Airstream info in the world, we should try and have pretty big photos as for the archives. I think 1600x1600 is pretty good for now...
... That means even though the upload was [HONKING BIG] ... It will end up taking more like [VERY LITTLE] space when it's been processed down to [A REASONABLY VIEWABLE] size. ...
Andy,
The automatic compression is a great idea. If a member wants to see a higher resolution image, he/she can PM the poster with a "more pixels" request .
I've attached an image of the man from GQ (number 2 son) taking in the shade from my recently cleaned awning which my computer says is a little over one meg.
__________________ Streaming in the spirit of Exploration... "To go places and do things that have never
been done before-that's what living is all about." - M. Collins
Ok, I just tested also. I attached a couple photos from my trip to Africa earlier this year. Both are from a digital camera, the first was uploaded from a 2.1 MB file and it was sized down to 718KB. The second was uploaded from a 333KB file that I opened in Fireworks and exported with 80% compression. It got bigger! Now it is 408KB. I think this is being caused by the compression settings.
I am going to change the compression settings and try to post the same two photos in the next post to see how they come out.
Here is a second try with the same photos to see how the compression is working (set at 75%).
Ok, on this second round of photos they were compressed to 287KB (previously 2.1 MB) and 147KB (previously 333KB).
I zoomed in on both sets and the balance between quality and size seems pretty good with the second set (I did not realize how big a difference the compression made). Feel free to test out and then we can delete them (so they don't take up your space). I hope you get similar results (better then before).
Ok, the compression was changed one more time based on feedback that the second set was a bit grainier then the first set. I will try the same photos again and lets see how the size comes out.
So on this last attempt with 85% compression here are the numbers:
2.1MB photo = 385KB
333KB photo = 206KB
Does this look like the best balance between size and image quality?
Andy, it's great having super-Gigabyte storage these days, but I wonder if 1600 pixels is useful. I've got an unusually wide display on one computer, 1920x1200, but most laptops are maxed out at 1400 wide, and usually less, say 1200. With the browser's window edges, etc, I bet most computers can only provide about 1000 useable pixels width. So if members post photos that are wider, I don't know what use they are unless they download them for printing.
I guess I'm advocating that photos attached to a post ought to be kept small, only big enough to show the details that are pertinent to the discussion or to convey the desired atmosphere, say 800x600 (if the member has the software that allows them to resize their images).
No hard and fast rules, understand, but big for big's sake isn't useful here. This is not just a viewing issue, it's also a bandwidth issue for many members, I'm sure. Nothing more irritating than to click on an image (not knowing how big it might be) and find yourself waiting, waiting, waiting to see the larger version only to find out that it's 4 times bigger than necessary to see the details. Or the image opens in a browser window that automatically resizes the image and you lose all the extra detail anyway.
All valid points, but I have to say that I like the large images. I only click the thumbnail if I want to see details anyway. Those with bandwidth issues don't have to load the large images. There have been times I have tried to see some detail, and the large image is still too small. Maybe just me, though.
__________________ Vaughan
A sixth sense (I lack the other five) tells me that I am in serious difficulties.Oscar Levant
...Those with bandwidth issues don't have to load the large images. There have been times I have tried to see some detail, and the large image is still too small...
Good point. Now that I think of it, I may have unnecessarily reduced the size of the floorplans and electrical drawings I previously uploaded. If it's not a burden to the server disk space, I think it would be a good idea to upload more detailed tech drawings in the future. thanks.
Hey, I'm from the old school. Too much disk space and RAM has made coders sloppy and I was allowing that bias to spill over into graphics. Urk.
Quick Links
I only click the thumbnail if I want to see details anyway. Those with bandwidth issues don't have to load the large images. There have been times I have tried to see some detail, and the large image is still too small. Maybe just me, though.
Hybrid Mode
