Can we increase the photo size limit, please?

[Malcolm Schweizer]

When I ran a PHPBB board for wood surfboard building, I paid $25 a year for a website with unlimited image hosting, and so I turned up the image posting limit. It cost me zero extra dollars, and people loved the ability to post images without hassle.

Can an we bump up the image posting limit to 5MB each so we don't have to resize photos? Even iPhone images are too big for the current limit. I just documented a project thoroughly and took care to set the camera for the least resolution, but still my images are too big.

Many thanks for considering it.

[Dan Hintz]

Can an we bump up the image posting limit to 5MB each so we don't have to resize photos?

A 5MB photo can potentially be HUGE on any mortal-sized monitor... scrollbars suck, so the forum had better be able to resize on the fly to prevent a 10-line paragraph of text becoming one single line that is 10 screens wide. Forums should limit image dimensions while still providing a large enough file size limit to allow for quality images. Limiting to file size only is a half-solution. I do not know what this particular forum is set up for, however...

[Art Mann]

There is always the possibility of providing a link to full resolution photos that are hosted somewhere else.

[Keith Outten]

Links to pictures that are hosted elsewhere become a problem when the pictures are no longer available. Threads often become useless when this happens and it can cause problems for us with the search engines and cause the demise of SawMill Creek when we have an undesirable number of broken links.

We host over one quarter million file attachments, most are pictures. Imagine the hard drive capacity we would have to have if we allowed five meg files. Secondly the bandwidth necessary to transfer such a large file would bankrupt our service as we would have to triple our server capacity without benefit of the funds to pay for the additional costs.

We host between 40 to 60 thousand unique visitors per day and our transfer statistics are huge, we also average between 15 to 20 million page views per month and although we do have a number of Contributors the majority of our funding comes from advertising. It is impossible for us to fund these kind of changes as long as the majority of our Members and all of our visitors use The Creek for free.
.

[Phil Thien]

Maybe the system parameters could be adjusted so very large photos could at least be uploaded before they're resized to whatever you guys feel like storing?

What I'm suggesting is taking a survey of cameras built into phones and figuring out the maximum resolution you would expect to see. Set upload limits to accommodate that size, but then resize it down to the maximum you want to store.

I imagine most of your traffic is outbound, so I don't think this would create a traffic issue as this data would be inbound. There would be some processing involved in the resizing, but I doubt there would be too many simultaneous uploads of giant photos, so maybe it would be tolerable?

[Myk Rian]

A 5MB photo can potentially be HUGE on any mortal-sized monitor... scrollbars suck, so the forum had better be able to resize on the fly to prevent a 10-line paragraph of text becoming one single line that is 10 screens wide.
Not to mention the entire thread expands to that width. Really makes things ugly.

I have no problem resizing pictures. Those that do either need to use a resizer that keeps both images available, or not upload.
Many say they are not computer literate, but it really is a simple process to resize.

[Phil Thien]

Not to mention the entire thread expands to that width. Really makes things ugly.

I have no problem resizing pictures. Those that do either need to use a resizer that keeps both images available, or not upload.
Many say they are not computer literate, but it really is a simple process to resize.

I'm torn. I agree that resizing is a simple process. OTOH, I seem to know so many people incapable of real simple processes.

Kind of a funny world we live in, you know. That is, knowing the difference between restarting and shutting down a PC makes you a bit of a Mensan.

[Mike Henderson]

I can well understand the need to limit the size of pictures. Even if the creek allowed very large pictures to be uploaded and then the creek resized them, bandwidth is used to transfer the pictures, and CPU cycles are used to do the resize. Asking people to resize before uploading is not too much to ask. Most pictures can be resized to 800 by 600 and will convey information quite well.

Mike

[Phil Thien]

I can well understand the need to limit the size of pictures. Even if the creek allowed very large pictures to be uploaded and then the creek resized them, bandwidth is used to transfer the pictures, and CPU cycles are used to do the resize. Asking people to resize before uploading is not too much to ask. Most pictures can be resized to 800 by 600 and will convey information quite well.

Mike

For some people, it might be.

SMC's pipe is probably hugely unbalanced, the traffic going out is multiples of what is coming in. I don't think bandwidth would be a problem.

CPU utilization certainly could be, but there just aren't that many people simultaneously posting threads with pictures. I honestly don't think the CPU ticks would be a problem, either. But I admit this is a variable.

If there would be a performance hit or some cost, I'd agree that users should be required to resize pics.

OTOH, if it is a feature that could be improved without any consequences, and would make some SMC users happy (and I'd be one of them, it would save me a step), then I don't see any reason why not.

Save for possible technical reasons, that is. I know the SMF software I use for my forum allows me to allow users to upload enormous photos that get resized. I don't know if vbulletin can do the same thing. I was just reading a thread that sort of indicated that maybe it can't. It which case, the entire point is moot.

[Art Mann]

The problem that I most often see is that people will upload a picture the size of a thumbnail and you can't tell anything about it.

[Phil Thien]

The problem that I most often see is that people will upload a picture the size of a thumbnail and you can't tell anything about it.

Yeah I see that a lot, too.

Based on that, though, I think it is safe to assume a lot of users do struggle w/ resizing. The pic may have started way too big, and in an effort to resize it, they made it way too small.

And there are certainly people that try to post pics that are too large that just give-up and say "the heck with it."

[M Toupin]

While I'm sure there's concerns about server load and band width, it's just plain inconsiderate to upload 5 megapixel (or larger) pictures. The screen stretch issue has already been mentioned, but more importantly is the impact on download speeds. While many of us are fortunate to have high speed connections with unlimited download, many folks are less fortunate. Many, especially in the rural areas, are on low speed or even dial-up connections and/or have download limits. To expect folks to spend minutes downloading just one mega pic and to pay for the data on top of it is not friendly.

The considerate thing to do is resize your pics. It's not difficult, download Picture Resizer (http://www.rw-designer.com/picture-resize), rename the exe to PhotoResize800.exe and just drop the picture, or even an entire folder full of pictures on the icon. It automatically resizes the pic to 800 pixels wide leaving the original in tact. Takes all of 1 click and about a second.

Mike

[Phil Thien]

While I'm sure there's concerns about server load and band width, it's just plain inconsiderate to upload 5 megapixel (or larger) pictures. The screen stretch issue has already been mentioned, but more importantly is the impact on download speeds. While many of us are fortunate to have high speed connections with unlimited download, many folks are less fortunate. Many, especially in the rural areas, are on low speed or even dial-up connections and/or have download limits. To expect folks to spend minutes downloading just one mega pic and to pay for the data on top of it is not friendly.

The considerate thing to do is resize your pics. It's not difficult, download Picture Resizer (http://www.rw-designer.com/picture-resize), rename the exe to PhotoResize800.exe and just drop the picture, or even an entire folder full of pictures on the icon. It automatically resizes the pic to 800 pixels wide leaving the original in tact. Takes all of 1 click and about a second.

Mike

I don't think anyone is advocating giant pics in threads. The question is whether the vbulletin software can be configured to automatically resize giant photos, and whether that would have any negative impact on system performance.

If the resizing step could be eliminated w/o consequence, we'd likely benefit as users because we'd see pics from people that may be very good woodworkers that either can't figure out how (or won't bother to) resize photos.

[Myk Rian]

I installed Image Resizer. https://imageresizer.codeplex.com/
To use it, go to where you store the picture you want to upload. RIGHT click the filename. Select RESIZE PICTURES from the list. Choose the size you want.
The result will be another picture with a name like Img_0105 (Small)
That is the one you choose to upload.
Really. What's so hard about that?

[Phil Thien]

Really. What's so hard about that?

(1) You have to download/install software. Download it from one of the wrong download sites, you get malware with it.
(2) You have to know an appropriate size. Someone may go too small, pics look like carp. Someone could try too large, have to start all over.
(3) You now have to copies of the same image.

Why do you guys think eBay and Craigslist (and others) are making their systems auto-size images? Answer: They're trying to appeal to the largest possible user base.

Again, I will just go on record as saying I don't know vbulletin can do this. I sort of suspect it cannot, otherwise I think Keith would have it turned on already.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

I was assuming this forum ran PHPBB software, but yes- it should resize the image, so it won't be unfriendly to the poor guy in the cabin in the woods. I live on an island that could almost qualify as third world and I have wireless Internet. It would just allow you to download the image without resizing. It is a pain to resize, and it takes up a lot of hard drive space to store extra images. Also for the iPad the resizing apps cause pixelation of the image, and as someone mentioned, I am not going to download some third party software to do this.

Just asking in in hopes of making it easier. These days even phones put out rather large images. I would post a lot more if I could more easily post pics. Millions of hits but comparatively few posts- just an observation.

[Keith Outten]

Unless there has been a change in recent upgrades vBulletin will do minor adjustments to files when they are uploaded. I don't know what the limit is of if Aaron has the ability to adjust the max size allowed. I can ask him but I'm sure that if the software is capable of an auto adjustment he has already set the size limit based on our average traffic and data transfer.

I sent the specs for our new primary server to Aaron several weeks ago, we need to upgrade soon to improve performance and stay ahead of the load as growth is a constant here. He hasn't been dragging his feet on this one as he just finished his final disertation at William and Mary which took precedence to his work here. FWIW he is now Dr. Aaron M. Koehl so congratulations are in order, we are very proud of Aaron's educational accomplishments and happy that he will have more time to spend here.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Congratulations Dr. Koehl!!! My wife is getting her PhD, which I'm pretty sure stands for "Pretty hard degree." William and Mary is no easy place to get one, so many congrats, and if I were you I would correct everyone I met when they addressed me... "Thats DOCTOR Koehl, thank you." You paid a lot of money and spent a lot of time on that title. :-)

[Phil Thien]

Congratulations Dr. Koehl!!! My wife is getting her PhD, which I'm pretty sure stands for "Pretty hard degree." William and Mary is no easy place to get one, so many congrats, and if I were you I would correct everyone I met when they addressed me... "Thats DOCTOR Koehl, thank you." You paid a lot of money and spent a lot of time on that title. :-)

+1 on the congratulations!

Fascinating dissertation topic, too, and I had never given it a second of thought.

I do insist on referring to people with PhD's as "Doctor." If I work with them long-term, I will shorten that to "Doc." Like when I see the CID on the phone is one of them I'll answer "Hey Doc." I do think it is important to acknowledge the achievement and cringe when I see others addressing someone with a PhD informally, especially in a public setting. I see it all the time, though.

[Jason Roehl]

+1 on the congratulations!

Fascinating dissertation topic, too, and I had never given it a second of thought.

I do insist on referring to people with PhD's as "Doctor." If I work with them long-term, I will shorten that to "Doc." Like when I see the CID on the phone is one of them I'll answer "Hey Doc." I do think it is important to acknowledge the achievement and cringe when I see others addressing someone with a PhD informally, especially in a public setting. I see it all the time, though.

I'm kind of that way, too, Phil. However, more and more, I am coming across people with advanced degrees who prefer to be addressed informally. I did an after-hours repaint of a dentists' office last fall, and every time I called the dentist "Doctor Smith", (not his real name) he would say, "Please, just call me 'Dan'" (his real first name).

I've also noticed that the younger generation is less likely to use "Mr.", "Mrs.", etc. Even at 40, I still look for my father when I hear someone say, "Mr. Roehl" because I don't hear it that much.

[Phil Thien]

I'm kind of that way, too, Phil. However, more and more, I am coming across people with advanced degrees who prefer to be addressed informally. I did an after-hours repaint of a dentists' office last fall, and every time I called the dentist "Doctor Smith", (not his real name) he would say, "Please, just call me 'Dan'" (his real first name).

I've also noticed that the younger generation is less likely to use "Mr.", "Mrs.", etc. Even at 40, I still look for my father when I hear someone say, "Mr. Roehl" because I don't hear it that much.

Yeah I agree many of the guys with whom I work don't want to be called doctor, but they seem to accept "doc." Although one of them told me I say "doc" because I can't remember all their names (I do IT work in some hospital groups). Of course, half the time their name is right on my phone (CID) or their jacket, so that just isn't the case.

I do have a few clients that refer to themselves as "doctor [last name]" when they call. They are asking to be addressed formally. They tend to be older, I'd say, and I supposed it is a PITA for them because so many doctors are so informal now.

Sometimes people used to address me as "Doctor Phil" which always made me cringe (because I really can't stand people that fake their achievements and I never even finished my four-year degree). Luckily the Dr. Phil TV guy put a stop to that, now calling me Dr. Phil would no longer be an honorary doctorate but some sort of comparison to the TV guy. Although a guy at the hardware store started calling me Doctor Phil about a year ago and this went on for a few visits until I think someone explained that I could be taking it as an insult.

I will just go on to add that I've never run into a person with an advanced degree with an ego problem, either. And I've worked with quite a few, including a guy with the trifecta from MIT (undergraduate, masters, PhD from MIT--that is impressive). I'd actually say that most of these guys feel like they have nothing to prove, they tend to be pretty humble, down to earth guys. Perhaps when you are that educated, you figure out just how much you don't know.

Edit to add: On some occasions, I've seen hospital employees that are not MD's wearing lab coats embroidered with their names without an "M.D." I'm talking about people from the IT department, LOL. Iit has always struck me as very strange, though I've never called anyone out on it.

[Aaron Koehl]

SawmillCreek can and already does resize images that are too large in the horizontal dimension to prevent scrolling. The maximum horizontal dimension before auto-resizing is 1200px. It also downsizes an image whose file size is too large (currently > 225K), and saves at a reduced fidelity (about 75%). We have a hard limit of about 1MB before resizing takes place.

However, a 5MB jpeg is just huge, and storage isn't the primary issue. If it takes you a full 1.5 to 3 minutes (depending on server load) to upload it, that consumes a web server process that could otherwise be used by literally thousands of other users. Even if there is extra bandwidth capacity (which we have), a user's connection speed (your peers) on slower carriers and connections will cause a process to be consumed for much longer.

SawmillCreek is a long way away from $25 web hosting, with bills reaching well into the thousands. When you're dealing with thousands of concurrent connections, both the math and infrastructure considerations become very different. Throughput is important. Amazon and Facebook are able to accommodate huge picture uploads because, frankly, they have deeper pockets and more servers.

We could offer this service down the road, but not at our current price point and donation schedule.



(1) You have to download/install software. Download it from one of the wrong download sites, you get malware with it.
(2) You have to know an appropriate size. Someone may go too small, pics look like carp. Someone could try too large, have to start all over.
(3) You now have to copies of the same image.

Why do you guys think eBay and Craigslist (and others) are making their systems auto-size images? Answer: They're trying to appeal to the largest possible user base.

Again, I will just go on record as saying I don't know vbulletin can do this. I sort of suspect it cannot, otherwise I think Keith would have it turned on already.

[Phil Thien]

Too bad three isn't a way to do the resize client-side in javascript (or something).

[Aaron Koehl]

Phil,

That's a very good idea. It is technically possible using HTML5 and canvas to do it client-side.


Too bad three isn't a way to do the resize client-side in javascript (or something).

[Phil Thien]

Phil,

That's a very good idea. It is technically possible using HTML5 and canvas to do it client-side.

Yeah I had done some googling and saw the technique. But I figured if it was practical, that it would have already been implemented in the VB code, or in an add-on module.

OTOH, maybe you could write an add-on module and make some do-re-mi selling it to other VB sites.

OTOOH, I question HTML5 support on portable devices? You'd know a lot more about that, than I. If the client-side resizing wouldn't work on (say) an iPad or Droid device, it may not be worth the bother. This is one of your areas of expertise, though. Certainly not one of mine.

[Dan Hintz]

SawmillCreek can and already does resize images that are too large in the horizontal dimension to prevent scrolling. The maximum horizontal dimension before auto-resizing is 1200px. It also downsizes an image whose file size is too large (currently > 225K), and saves at a reduced fidelity (about 75%). We have a hard limit of about 1MB before resizing takes place.

When trying to link to a pic's url (and select the option to download the pic) for threads here, I often get the error that the image is too large. It's not, unless your limits are set unbelievably small. Next time I come across that (it's not often I grab pics off of the web, so it may be a while, and I will likely forget) I'll send a note with a link.

[Todd Willhoit]

Too bad three isn't a way to do the resize client-side in javascript (or something).
This would be ideal, and a huge time-saver if one could select multiple images.


Links to pictures that are hosted elsewhere become a problem...
This is the very reason automated server-side or client-side resizing would be beneficial. I believe the reduced hassle would encourage users to upload images rather than linking out, killing two birds with one stone.

Although it is a less attractive solution for several reasons, another option could be to permit contributors to upload larger images which are then resized at the server.



(2) You have to know an appropriate size. Someone may go too small, pics look like carp.

312207
I hate it when that happens!

[Kent A Bathurst]

I'm not all that sure I want photos of my stuff in super-fine resolution. I get enough grief from Harold about my Tigers; see no need to add fuel to that fire with infinite detail of my "joinery"........ ;)