NEW FORUM UPLOAD FEATURES - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 10:29:57 am
content: EEVblog keep the attached images as thumbnails at the end of each post, so they wont make too much traffic unless a thumbnail is clicked. Good for speed and traffic, bad for more complex posts when the images need to be kept between the lines of text in order to make sense.Some of us have slower internet or expensive data plans, so how much traffic is still acceptable for you?Is there any way to have click-able embedded thumbnails, so they expand only when clicked and still be located between the lines of the text, not all in bulk at the end of each post like it is now on EEVblog?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 11:16:14 am
content: Just keep the images as small as possible.I've noticed some people wasting space by saving schematics in 32-bit colour depth, at a much higher resolution than necessary. I keep my schematics small by using <8-bit colour depth (often 1-bit) no transparency and a fairly low resolution. Most of my attachments are under 10kB.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 11:20:57 am
content: In my experience Flickr works very good to add images to postings. The forum itself is no good at all when it comes to embedding images.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 11:27:02 am
content: As mentioned in another thread, posts are currently set for up to 5000kB per image which I think is well above what is necessary for general conversation and visual indications, high definition macros are a different kettle of fish altogether and people should still have the option of opening them or not.News - Attachmentshttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/news/change-attachments/msg2488080/#msg2488080

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 11:29:54 am
content: Like this?Text text and more texttext text text.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 11:46:08 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on July 01, 2019, 10:29:57 amWe've been asking to be able to embed the thumbnails within the text for years.QuoteI don't mind 2.2MB if it's needed, and especially if is a clickable thumbnail which you'll only have to look at once, or less.Problem is now people are posting self opening 2.5MB images when 120kB would do, pages full of large images are a pain.QuoteEmbedded clickable thumbnails would be fine with me because you could click them back to a thumbnail to see the text.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 11:50:36 am
content: Quote from: Berni on July 01, 2019, 11:29:54 amSo of, but browsers are still downloading the 23,766 bytes thumbnail AND the 789,779 bytes image even if not clicked on.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 12:58:51 pm
content: Well i prefer it that way because i don't have to wait for the image to load, i get the big image as soon as i click it.But i do have a 150Mbit fiber connection and no data cap.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 01:02:14 pm
content: I propose an idea that reduces the need to open the full image: Increase the thumbnail size to something like 640x480 or 800x600.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 03:05:31 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 01, 2019, 01:02:14 pmThat won't always save space/bandwidth, because the forum software always saves thumbnails with a 32-colour depth, which would mean the thumbnails for many schematics will end up being much larger than the original file. In fact this is already often the case, for lots of my schematics, even with the current 100x100 thumbnail size, but it's a non-issue because the file sizes are still tiny.Here's an example:Thumbnail file size: 4.12kBOriginal file size: 1.53kB

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 04:13:58 pm
content: Wouldn't it be trivial to add a bit of logic to check if the thumbnail is a bigger file, in which case make the thumbnail a symbolic link to the original image?

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 04:16:28 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 01, 2019, 11:16:14 amGood policy. I try to keep the resolution of my drawings, photos and screen captures less than VGA (640x480). When they're "big", HD (1280X720), tops. The size of their files range from 30kB to 500KB. My drawings use no transparency. But it hasn't crossed my mind that when they're monochrome I could convert the picture to B&W and save space. I'll use this expedient whenever possible from now on.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 05:03:25 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on July 01, 2019, 12:58:51 pmYour 771.27 KB image doesn't matter that much but in the past we've had 40MB+ of self-opening images in just one post.Quote from: Zero999 on July 01, 2019, 03:05:31 pmI didn't know that, the thumbnails for my 9.5kB 800x480 16 colour .gifs are only 2.5kB.Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 01, 2019, 01:02:14 pmLOL

author: MarkF
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 05:37:09 pm
content: Here are two examples of what gets my goat! (Sorry to the users I pulled these examples from.)Take a moment to crop.I also have a CSS style to limit the photo height to my screen size.POSTED:PREFERRED:POSTED:PREFERRED:

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 06:17:04 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on July 01, 2019, 04:16:28 pmJust use Gimp to reduce the image to indexed, with a maximum palette of 256 colours and export to PNG. PNG supports 1-bit, 2-bit, 4-bit and 8-bit indexed modes and Gimp will automatically select the correct one, so if it has two colours, you'll get a 1-bit PNG.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 07:48:14 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on July 01, 2019, 04:16:28 pmThat seems way outdated in today's day and age. I generally target 1080p except when it would clearly be overkill or is insufficient to show relevant detail. Pretty much every PC monitor I see for sale nowadays is at least 1080p. Once 1440p or 4K becomes mainstream to the extent 1080p is now, that would become my new target.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2019, 11:09:56 pm
content: For the PNGs is pretty straightforward how to minimize their side. Unfortunately PNG is good only for schematics or screen captures, where there are large areas of the same color. PNG is not compressing well when there are variable shades and colors, as pictures usually have.For pictures JPG is still the best compromise. I tried a few resolutions at different compressions for JPGs.If the pics are resized to 1024x768 then exported with 50% compression (from Gimp), then the size is reduced from a typical 2MB (for my Z1 camera) to only 30...70KB.As an example, a huge post like this,https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/measure-a-magnets-b-field-with-a-rigol-ds1054z-oscilloscope-and-a-piece-of-wire/with 4 photos and 6 oscilloscope screen's captures, all embedded at full size between text, has only 500KB in total!Thank you all for the help

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 03:57:57 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 01, 2019, 06:17:04 pmHa! Awesome! I managed to reduce an 8-bit png image from 37kB to just 1-bit 2.8kB. My free-hand trace appears a little jagged (because of the loss of the smoothing gray scale) , but what the heck? The resulting file is less than one tenth of the original file in size. Thanks a bunch for the tip.Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 01, 2019, 07:48:14 pmWell I always think of the cell phone viewers with low resolution screens and/or slow/limited bandwidth connections.I think these resolutions provide a reasonable experience on both mobile and desktop. If I ever have to show for some reason a larger picture, I'll leave it as the default clickable thumbnail at the end of the message.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 04:58:03 am
content: The mobile site is different from the desktop version, and that's where the suggestion to upsize the thumbnails really helps - make them double as the default mobile images!

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 05:01:26 am
content: Yeah monochrome PNG for diagrams is a big time space saver, GIF also does pretty well here.But you certainly don't want to save a photo as a PNG. Because of it being a losses format it tries to perfectly replicate the noise and compression artifacts and this results in files that are many times larger than JPEG. But those big 5MB JPEGs from a modern phone camera can certainly be squeezed down a lot. The image quality of such photos is often not that great anyway so there is no major quality loss in resampling the image to 1/2 scale or turning up the jpeg compression factor higher.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 05:27:33 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 01, 2019, 06:17:04 pmI tried indexed 256 colors palette for photos in JPG format, and to my surprise the result was 1-2KB larger than when the palette was left unchanged.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 05:36:27 am
content: Imo, all problems with big sized photos/pictures still depend on the poster's knowledge and care.Some are totally noob to be aware of that certain photo/picture is only suitable in lossy compression format like JPEG, while some are very good in lossless format like PNG. Google if any you still don't have any idea which is which is the most optimal for each type of photo/picture/illustration.Of course, some are just ignorance, plain lazy and don't care shit about this.Also regarding photo shot from camera (not illustration like schematic), an excuse that only big sized file say like > 1MB is needed to bring the details, personally, I think that is excessive for most of the cases. An example from one of my photo posted here in this forum below, its only 120KB and I believe it has enough details presented to viewers to get my point.Its about my rotting connector plastic that oozed out nasty flakes that I posted at other thread.Click to enlargeOf course, I did post huge file sized photos too, but that was intentional, as it needs all the details as much as possible for viewer to view the traces at 4 layers board with a backlighting. It was photos of PCB shots that I managed to custom adjust the compression level of two JPG files, at original camera's resolution with 1 MB each up to the forum's limit at that time which was 2 MB max in a single post. Example ->HERE

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 07:57:39 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on July 02, 2019, 05:27:33 amWhat sort of image was it? A photograph by any chance? My comment regarding PNG and indexed colour, only applies to schematics and drawings, with large areas of either the same colour, or a repeating pattern. As mentioned above, PNG is no good for photographs. Use JPEG, smooth the image and use a lower quality setting to save space.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 08:41:24 am
content: I voted < 500kB because that's a pretty safe maximum. There are very few cases where you should ever need more size than that in a single image. Average probably around 100k.If you can't say it in 800x600 or such*, should you really be saying it at all? Consider first of all, cropping, brightening and sharpening your image. Second, if you must show detail, why not crop sections, or take macro shots? There is so much more information you can present, in so much better ways.*This was once a common screen resolution, but that's largely of historical significance anymore, even among mobile devices (which have vertical or mixed aspect ratios, oddball numbers, and, some of them have bizarre cutouts in the display?...well, anyway...). Anyway, similar number of pixels, about a half a megapixel, really.Most people, simply give it no thought whatsoever, have no clue that this is even a thing to argue about -- they have no need or care of the details, they just want to get an image from here to there.For their benefit, there could perhaps be an added step like, "Would you like your image to be reduced automatically?" The default option would be "yes", encouraging its use. Answering "no" might give a second nag, "would you like your image compressed for faster loading?", which would save it at JPG compression 80-90 say, or PNG indexed, whichever is smaller; assuming this isn't a tremendous load on the server of course**; and if declined both times, just let it through absolutely normal. Possibly add an option "Use these options for all attachments?" for when a user is posting a lot of images and doesn't want the nag every time. Or put it in the user profile as another option ("attachments: advanced mode" say?).**It could be done clientside with a JS library, though I'm not sure quite how slow that would go. Which... oh neat, Canvas.toDataURL takes a type ("image/png" (default) or "image/jpeg" for example), with a second parameter for quality. So it's probably in most browsers to begin with, no page overhead, and it should be very fast.But, speaking of laziness, it may well be more effort to introduce such a feature to the forum software, than it is to provide for the server and connections, and if most users aren't complaining about load times or poorly formatted images who cares, right?Tim

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 09:14:30 am
content: I wouldn't mind seeing an optional automatic image compression feature. But i think id only offer the feature for compressing down ridiculously large JPEG photos.You don't want to convert a schematic in JPG format into a PNG. The PNG will try to encode all of the JPEG artifacts and grow the file size a lot. You can also have transparency in formats like PNG and GIF where automatic conversions sometimes fall on its face.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 09:22:44 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 02, 2019, 08:41:24 amIndeed. And even for those who do care it is just too much work to cut/edit every picture.QuoteHence my suggestion to use a service like Flickr which can serve images in many sizes. Perhaps Dave & Gnif can setup something similar on the EEVblog server.

author: MarkF
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 03:34:56 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 02, 2019, 09:22:44 amUntil the service purges all its old pictures.Then you have a bunch of useless discussions. Which, we already have! Missing circuits, etc.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 04:07:48 pm
content: Isn't it possible to have a basic image editor in the browser? Just the basic crop, scale, and rotate would be enough for the majority who would use it, while those more advanced would probably already be using something like GIMP.

author: Dubbie
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 06:10:39 pm
content: To users with modern 4K screens, 640 or 800 pix images are practically thumbnails. I think things are fine as they are.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 06:33:14 pm
content: Quote from: Dubbie on July 02, 2019, 06:10:39 pmWell you can easily zoom in, which doesn't cost any extra bandwidth.

author: MarkF
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 07:59:09 pm
content: It's not the resolution that's the problem. It is the file size.Do not post 8 MB pictures! Period.Some of us do not have the luxury of a Gigabyte internet connection.At 3 Mbps download speed, these 4K pictures take FOREVER to download.Surely there is a middle ground here.The only reason to post pictures that big would be a schematic and if it is in a PNG format it will not have artifacts and the lossless compression will reduce the file size.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 09:38:15 pm
content: Quote from: Dubbie on July 02, 2019, 06:10:39 pmThat would be enough to inform the user if it's worth opening the full resolution image, unlike the current situation where the thumbnails are only useful to give a rough idea what it might be about.Quote from: MarkF on July 02, 2019, 07:59:09 pmHence the idea of making the thumbnails something like 640x480 or 800x600, maybe even as high as 720p. Then the users with limited bandwidth would only open the full resolution images if they think there's something worth looking at in detail.At this point, I would say that 1080p would satisfy most users in most situations, and still look quite good under 1MB per image. An exception would be images of large boards that need more detail.

author: MarkF
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 10:19:39 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 02, 2019, 09:38:15 pmThumbnails that large (even at 640x480) are full size pictures on a 1080p display (i.e. a laptop)!Thumbnails should not be bigger than 200x150

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2019, 11:11:32 pm
content: If the thumbnails don't show much detail, the full image would almost always be opened anyways, saving little bandwidth. I suspect some value around what I gave would be the compromise point that actually would significantly reduce the need to open the full image.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 01:29:09 am
content: Quote from: Dubbie on July 02, 2019, 06:10:39 pmI doubt that will be the case because those people likely have a zoom factor to scale everything up. Otherwise nothing would be readable in any application.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 02:36:19 am
content: If it was my choice, the ideal solution would be an SMF plugin that enabled inline images to be thumbnailed in the same fashion as image attachments. That way they can be positioned properly within the body of the post, but not incur extra bandwidth until clicked upon. I hunted around for such a thing a few weeks ago, but didn't find one.I once visited a thread here using my phone and accessing the mobile version of the forum. Although it was fast since I was on LTE, it was over 50MB(!) for one page due to all the inline images.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 02:39:49 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 03, 2019, 01:29:09 amOn the desktop, 4K monitors are commonly available to 40" or bigger (mine is 50"), so similar dot pitch to 20" class 1080p monitors.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 04:07:59 am
content: Quote from: bitseeker on July 03, 2019, 02:36:19 amIf this feature exist, it will be perfect.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 08:35:33 am
content: Even though the number of openings of thumbnails isverylow compared with a page's number of views, to show more detail I think thumbnails should be 1600x1200 pixels and limited to just 5 or 6MB each. If the reader really needs to see the full res sized image they can always just click on the 1600x1200 thumbnail.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 09:01:21 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 02, 2019, 09:38:15 pmWell that's the idea behind thumbnails: to give a rough idea of what the image is.QuoteAs I said before, the forum software saves thumbnails in 32-bit colour PNG, which would waste a huge amount of bandwidth, at that resolution. Unfortunately the software isn't smart enough to do as you suggested in yourother post.This has been discussed before. The thumbnails were originally larger, than they are now, 500x500, but were reduced to 100x100, after it was realised how much bandwidth was being wasted: 300kB PNG thumbnails for 52kB JPEGS!https://www.eevblog.com/forum/news/forum-picture-efficiency/msg46420/#msg46420

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 10:11:46 am
content: I would love to pay some $$ more (even on a year base) to be able to upload here more data.QuoteFor paying supporters it should be at least:QuoteSlow internet connections users they will have problems not only at the EEVblog.We are in 2019.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 10:28:54 am
content: Quote from: zucca on July 03, 2019, 10:11:46 am250MB per post is pretty big.I'd have to check with gnif on the server implications of this. Not sure of the current drive size or options.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 10:47:00 am
content: Quote from: zucca on July 03, 2019, 10:11:46 amStrongly disagree, 250MB per post is outrageous, because it will make a crappy forum for everybody else except a few that can afford to waste bandwidth and resources in general.I'm not saying that for my own interest. My $10/month unlimited traffic 1Gbps fiber optic can download a DVD faster than a SSD can store it (800Mbs sustained download and 200Mbps sustained upload is very common here, Romania is one of the best in the world for its high speed internet at affordable prices), but why would I want to see a 10MB jpeg?I tried various compression rates and resolution, as suggested by the poll's results. 1024 pixels wide and 50-100KB for one photo is more than enough even for a 32inch/4K monitor and not so sharp eyes, so why serving a photo with a size 100 times bigger than necessary?

author: Zucca
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 11:30:43 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on July 03, 2019, 10:47:00 amIn your case I would turn off the image on the browser.10Mb jpeg is stupid of course. I am talking about real data.The EEVBlog is one if the finest place for EE Hack, we need to be able to pull and store our data (.zip, .7z., ISO images) here.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 12:12:27 pm
content: Turning off the images will be a little too extreme.Instead, I've just added my own poll to the ignored subjects list.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 12:20:11 pm
content: Is the idea to turn EEVblog into a photobucket, make it unusable for 50%+ of the users, or put Dave out of business, or all of them.Rather than increasing the attachments size to 500MB for those users that can't be bothered cropping and compressing their images for the 1000s of viewers, I'd rather vote for those users to be banned.Its 2019, anyone who hasn't got a 40" laptop on their knee and an 120" monitor on their desk is just not with it.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 12:40:53 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 03, 2019, 09:01:21 amHow difficult would it be to have all thumbnails be JPEG, or use JPEG if the source is JPEG and PNG if the source is PNG?Quote from: zucca on July 03, 2019, 11:30:43 amP2P would be better for that, such as Bittorrent or IPFS.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 06:41:29 pm
content: Quote from: zucca on July 03, 2019, 10:11:46 amSlow internet connection users do not have problems because most sites are considerate enough to offer images and videos at various resolutions. I can watch whatever of Dave's videos on Youtube from 144p to 1080p.So, if the forum permit paying users to upload ridiculous 10MB images, then it must provide some automatic resizing to a reasonable resolution so as to not alienate most users.

author: ledtester
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2019, 06:46:14 pm
content: What about making it a user preference? It would mean tweaking the forum code, but I'm sure it can't be that difficult.And while we're talking about images, I'd like to have the forum auto-remove EXIF info from jpegs. I'm not worried so much about the typical eevblog forum user, it's just that the photos are available to the general internet and all of the personal info harvesters out there.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2019, 06:19:33 pm
content: I'm surprised so many don't care about the resolution and MB size.This original 3.1MB 5102x6599 image expands to 100MB in memory and makes my FF crawl along.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/help-diagnosing-this-dual-555-timer-circuit-please-(pwm-blinking)/msg2525259/#msg2525259I can get it down to 31kB and 1MB in memory, which is nearly nothing in comparison!

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2019, 06:33:15 pm
content: Quote from: BravoV on July 03, 2019, 04:07:59 amThis mod might be it. At least it sounds like it enables you to relocate the bottom-of-post attachments to inline positions preserving the thumbnailing functionality. This would also eliminate the duplicate thumbnails at the end of the post when they already appear inline.Does anyone have an SMF 2.x environment set up where they could try it out?https://www.smfhacks.com/index.php?topic=9060.0

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2019, 08:50:58 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on July 03, 2019, 10:47:00 amMost every (probably every) SSD can do random writes well in excess of what a 1 Gbps link can download.A 1 Gbps link will typically download around 100 MBps. One Byte (big B) is about 10 bits (little B) on the wire.An SSD can typically store 200+MBps.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2019, 11:29:48 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 06, 2019, 06:19:33 pmThe bandwidth used by still images is tiny compared to the bandwidth used by video. And even what would be considered an old PC by today's standards (e.g. a Lenovo T410) can handle pretty big images just fine.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 12:20:02 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 06, 2019, 11:29:48 pmDon't you think a single simple line drawing opening to a 5102x6599 image and using 100MB of browser memory is a bit excessive for one image in a mostly text forum, it only works well because most of us resize.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 12:37:08 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 07, 2019, 12:20:02 amPerhaps, but in some other cases like a detailed image of a large PCB, there really would be a good reason to have that level of detail. A 1080p/1MB "soft limit" might be an idea, where the user would be asked if they really intended to post something bigger. I wonder if a large percentage of those who post pictures well above 1080p without intending to do so were posting from a smartphone or tablet.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 01:51:30 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 07, 2019, 12:37:08 amThere's no "perhaps" about it.QuoteCertainly true - but from my experience these are very much the exception.QuoteI get what you're saying - but I fully expect there will be many that will see this as something they can click past, rather than fix.QuoteThis may be - but it still imposes a burden on others.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 01:57:13 am
content: Quote from: zucca on July 03, 2019, 10:11:46 amSorry - in the context of this thread, that is a rather selfish view. The issue isnotthe limits imposed on a member when posting, butthe impact it has on other members.QuoteSorry, but I find this attitude arrogant and bordering on offensive.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 02:20:09 am
content: I would prefer the forum accept large images but maybe automatically create a "small resolution" version of pictures bigger than let's say 1600 pixels wide.Have those compressed with JPG 75% quality or something like that... most such images would be under 100 KB in size. if I click on the image, I can get the 5000x something 2-5 MB full size picture.People are more and more taking photos with their phones which use stupid presets like JPG 95% quality or higher, so they take 10 MP+ pictures that are 3-5 MB each.This forum's "image upload" feature is very cumbersome, you have to admit.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 04:46:02 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 07, 2019, 01:51:30 amA default option on the dialog to downscale it to 1080p should fix the lazy part. Actually make them uncheck the option if they want to post full resolution.Is there a decent open source and easy to use crop and scale app for Android? A quick search finds one for cropping (LLCrop) and one for scaling (Send Reduced), but two apps to process a single image is a bit excessive. I haven't looked too closely since I don't really have a use for such an app - I just use KDE Connect to send it to a PC and use the full desktop version of GIMP for all image editing.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 06:33:16 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 07, 2019, 04:46:02 amThat would work - but the question becomes one of how such a facility becomes included in the SMF software. Dave or Gnif certainly would not want to get into any sort of custom mod - and I would not expect them to as this would turn into a maintenance headache.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 12:18:52 pm
content: Quote from: BravoV on July 02, 2019, 05:36:27 amThis part impressed me!!, and so my 'experiment' further below. Obviously the problems are many-fold...File-size, Data-Usage, and ease of viewing. Obviously we can't help 'everyone', but to 'ME' the problemis one of 'Readability' by others. What 'BravoV' did above, was to use the *img* & */img* IN-LINE,but added the *width=64* after the opening *img* tag. (REPLY with QUOTE to see the coding, but don't post).I use 'imgur' to store images, but you have to understand that AFTER uploading them, you have to Right-Clickon the photos, and select 'View-Image', to get the actualLINKto use for the Jpg image.Here is an EXAMPLE of say 3 images, to be shown IN-LINEwithintext, with NO attachments......Here is photo 1, that can be clicked on to see the original image, from imgur...Now there is some more text here, and then another image...And finally, some more 'text', before showing a final image here below...Notice there are NO 'Attachments' below this, and that they are only LINKS above. And that the LINKShave been limited to ICON size representations ! I don't know how it could be simpler.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 12:57:55 pm
content: What I don’t like about recommending external hosting is that you then make the long-run hosting subject to the whims and business model changes (or even tech changes) of a third party provider.I’m on several forums where there’s some old posts with all the images gone.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 01:37:15 pm
content: Yes - All we need is another Photobucket fiasco.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 02:14:07 pm
content: I wonder how easy would it be to implement a hybrid P2P system where the P2P part is for backup. The backup nodes can run on cheap, low power hardware such as Raspberry Pi and are programmed to retrieve newly posted images, prioritizing those that have the least number of copies on the network. Each posted image will be tagged with its hash, so finding a missing image should be as easy as searching for the hash on the network.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 05:56:52 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 02, 2019, 08:41:24 amThere are probably two sides to this issue: First, as a requester of information, I would probably cut down an image in terms of pixels and color depth just to be able to post it. I need an answer to something that is essentially visual. Second, as a responder, I am not going to spend the time to cut down an image that responds to somebody else's request. Too much effort, no reward.QuoteAs long as the resulting image displays the intent, I am all in favor of automagic. But if we're looking for that tiny little spike in a scope image, it would be regrettable if the compression eliminated it.QuoteI would see storage space as a bigger issue than download size. My download rate is 300 Mbps and no cap. I simply don't care how large an image is. What I don't want to do is get into a compression game just to upload an image in response to somebody else's question.Automagic, that's the ticket!

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 06:01:25 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on July 07, 2019, 12:57:55 pmI have a different point of view on ancient threads. I think threads should be tagged as zombies after a year since the last post (or a year from origination) and no more posts are accepted. Read all you want but don't try to bring it back to life. Given a zombie thread, I wouldn't mind having the images deleted a year or so after that point. This stuff just isn't important enough to archive forever.

author: sokoloff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 06:16:53 pm
content: I understand that point of view. I don't happen to agree, because very few fields change that quickly.What worked in engineering, cars, aviation, home appliances, electronics, or whatever a year ago probably still works today. It's amazingly frustrating to find via search a thread with your exact issue and screenshots in the thread, with text that says "see screenshot for the solution" and for the screenshot to be 404...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 06:23:58 pm
content: Quote from: sokoloff on July 07, 2019, 12:57:55 pmI agree that using external images / attachement isn't ideal but this forum simply doesn't offer a viable alternative. If you want to create a posting with several images on EEVblog you have to re-edit your post several times and copy links to the attachements. That is a lot of work (besides the size of the images). Some forums (like Tapatalk) have their own system to handle attachements in a user friendly way.@sokoloff: you are 100% right. I don't like it when that happens too.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2019, 08:29:26 pm
content: I guess it all boils down to the fact that the Internet has become essentially graphic and this forum software--what is it called? SMF?--is still text-oriented when it comes to uploading: as if we were sending email messages. It still treats anything that is not text as if it were a MIME, i.e., an extension, an appendix, an attachment.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2019, 01:13:23 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 07, 2019, 12:37:08 amOr people with super large images just just post them on Imgur or anywhere else and link/embed that. If people want to see all 100million pixels they can click on it and go there.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2019, 01:15:05 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on July 07, 2019, 08:29:26 pmI really like the ZenForo forum software I use on another forum, you can just CTRL-V the image (and other things like HTML pages etc) inline into your post and it just displayes it. No need to upload etc.I can really see that being abused though.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2019, 06:40:39 pm
content: This seems a useful way to address the inline images:https://www.smfhacks.com/index.php?topic=9060.0

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 01:37:36 am
content: Quote from: bitseeker on July 08, 2019, 06:40:39 pmInstalledThere are now extra options in the attachment box.Testing "Inline expandable thumbnail"

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 01:38:49 am
content: Testing inline full size image

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 01:39:25 am
content: Testing normal end of post thumbnail

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 01:40:35 am
content: Testing inline text linksmfinline.png(28.85 kB. 1112x465 - viewed 165 times.)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 01:41:45 am
content: Yep, this new plugin works great. Default option doesn't change anything, but added extra flexability. And now I don't have to edit the post in order to post inline attachments!

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 02:25:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2019, 01:37:36 amDoes it still have the insistence to save thumbnails as PNG (when the source is JPG) which causes problems with making the thumbnails bigger?Also, the image doesn't show when quoted.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 02:28:32 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2019, 01:38:49 amTesting quote of inline full size image. (Also not working.)

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 03:04:57 am
content: Testing inline full-size imageSeems to work.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 03:06:16 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 09, 2019, 02:25:56 amI presume it still creates the thumbnail, as the upload process has not changed.QuoteThat's a problem. But most times I want to remove inline images when responding to reduce clutter.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 03:13:24 am
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on July 09, 2019, 03:04:57 amThe image doesn't appear in quotes, but it does appear in the messages below the editing window. So, I can copy the image address and place it in the quote instead of the attachment=1 reference.Wonderful.

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 03:27:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2019, 01:37:36 amFrom a smart tv perspective when viewed at 200% this image was ridiculously huge when clicked and a further mouse click just zoomed in even further. The image went to full screen view automatically and looked good when viewed at 100%. I then needed to hit the back button to return to the post but this could be normal as I haven't had a look from the computer as yet.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 04:22:02 am
content: Quote from: Muttley Snickers on July 09, 2019, 03:27:17 amYes, seem you have to hit the back button, it's not a popup.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 04:25:06 am
content: There is also this advanced attachment plugin:https://www.smfpacks.com/au/

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 04:32:06 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2019, 04:25:06 amInstalled and testing a CTRL-V image (Nope, didn't work)Testing drag'n'drop: Worked!, draged direct from my Sreenpresso window, NICE!And doesn't muck up the previously installed inline extras

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 04:33:37 am
content: I'm now very happy with uploads, it's so much nicer.Now the only thing I'd want is CTRL-V of images form the clipboard.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 04:35:24 am
content: I just changed the thread title so others can see there are new features.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 05:13:05 am
content: On the mobile version, the attachments at the end of the messages open on a new tab. The inline attachments are first downloaded, then viewed. I'm using Chrome. Inlined full size images appear like in the full site.In any case, that really enhances the experience of uploading and viewing content on the forum. Very nice.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 05:14:10 am
content: Sick! Thanks Dave and co!Tim

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 05:18:51 am
content: Testing ...Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 09, 2019, 05:14:10 amDirect quote without copying the image URL ...Quote from: T3sl4co1l on July 09, 2019, 05:14:10 amQuote with img and width directive with image url ...Ok, thats fine with me.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 05:42:09 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2019, 01:37:36 amThanks for testing it out, Dave. It'll save me a lot of bbcode work to write documentation like this with clickable thumbnails (and all the dupe thumbnails at the end):https://www.eevblog.com/forum/metrology/usa-cal-club-getting-started-user-guide/I'll have to update the guide at some point to tidy it up using the new inline codes.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 08:32:19 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 06, 2019, 06:19:33 pmThe size can be reduced further by reducing it to a monochrome PNG, which will also makes it easier to read, as it's a line drawing.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 10:07:57 am
content: If the thumbnail size on the server is an issue. You could incrementally run a tool like pnggauntlet to compress the colour space. So new uploads have the crazy big ones. But anything older than say a week is reduced.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 12:37:46 pm
content: Quote from: Rerouter on July 09, 2019, 10:07:57 amI haven't changed the thumbnail size in a long time, no problem so far.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 01:11:21 pm
content: Let me test this...It works!!! Thanks Dave & Co. for making this real.That is a much nicer way of attaching stuff. Drag'n drop worked as well.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2019, 08:19:00 pm
content: Nice improvements.I don't mind the changing of a full size image to a link in the quote. You inevitably get someone quoting a full teardown of 10+ photos and leaving the images in place.I'm assuming there is a way to edit the code "attach=1" to show it full size when needed though.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 01:42:56 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on July 09, 2019, 08:19:00 pmProbably 4 out of 5 times I want to remove the image in a quote, so it's handy.QuoteThat attach=1 code is only valid ifthatpost has attachments. If you are just quoting someone then it no longer has a reference, you'll have to copy the image URL the usual way.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 11:12:49 am
content: I FULLY understand when people say that 'Images' or what ever, that are linked 'externally', can'disappear' over time. However, for the MOST part, such info can be of transient interest at thetime, for visual interest. If someone considers the text/images within a particular Post to be ofsuch Importance, then like myself, I would have SAVED such info, for later perusal/use. ??

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 11:55:01 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2019, 01:38:49 amOne issue with this, compared to the regular [ img ] tags: They don't scale to page width. Instead, it just turns the whole post (not just the image!) into a left-right scrolling nightmare. This could lead to significant problems with people posting inline images on their 30" displays with the browser maximized, not realizing that they won't scale down as the traditional tag does, meaning that any text they write in the post will require incessant horizontal scrolling to read.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 12:03:05 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2019, 04:22:02 amThat's super annoying, having thumbnails behavecompletelydifferently depending on where they are in a post.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 12:30:59 pm
content: Multiple inline attachment test

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 12:38:55 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 09, 2019, 04:32:06 amFYI, there's a substantial "gotcha" with them combined when using multiple attachments: the inline plugin doesn't know about the advanced attachments. So if you use advanced attachments to add multiple attachments (identifiable by the images being uploaded in real-time, adding a thumbnail immediately) instead of clicking the "more attachments" link to add another file chooser), the inline plugin doesn't know this, and sees only the first one.In the test above, the hare with rifle and Perry the Platypus were uploaded (in that order) using the advanced attachments upload, having selected "inline thumbnail". It only inserts one insert tag (with attachment ID 1), not two. The fox with binoculars was uploaded using "more attachments" to add another file chooser, and it correctly incremented another insert tag (with ID 2).Expected/desired behavior would have been for the hare to have ID 1, Perry to have ID 2, the fox to have ID 3, with an inline thumbnail of all three. Instead, the fox got ID 1 and an inline thumbnail, Perry got ID 3 but no inline thumbnail, and the hare got ID 2 and an inline thumbnail.Additionally, the advanced attachments plugin ONLY applies to the first file chooser. Any additional ones added by the "more attachments" link retain strictly the old 1 chooser == 1 file behavior, where selecting another file replaces the previously selected one.None of this is a deal-breaker (they're still useful plugins), just something to be aware of when doing complex posts with multiple inline attachments. In that case, it's probably best to attach them as traditional attachments and then go back and edit to insert them. But using advanced attachments for multiple "traditional" attachments works great.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 02:13:41 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on July 10, 2019, 11:12:49 amYes, but sometimes the user left the forum and the images are forever gone. And I am not talking about the "joke" images or other General Chat section discussions, but I have bumped into several timeless teardowns and other very interesting bits that are gonski forever.I had two or three teardowns and interesting posts hosted on Imageshack which I ended up reuploading the images to the EEVBlog. I also warned other users on occasion that their excellent teardowns and posts were lost due to external hosting images - some of them responded positively and did the work at their own personal expense.Overall, IMO hosting on EEV enriches the forum to an untangible level - we can't predict the future.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 03:03:31 pm
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on July 10, 2019, 02:13:41 pmI fully agree. There have been more than a few examples of images becoming unavailable on external services. It's definitely not a small or theoretical situation.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 05:44:09 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 10, 2019, 11:55:01 amThat's a bummer. Can it be fixed via CSS?

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 05:46:54 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 10, 2019, 12:03:05 pmYes, unfortunately, when clicking an inline thumbnail generated by this mod, it doesn't load the full-size image inline. Instead, it just directs the browser to the attachment, which loads as a new page. Ideally, it would've loaded the image inline, similar to the way thumbnails at the bottom dynamically load the full-size image in place.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 05:48:14 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 10, 2019, 12:38:55 pmThanks for all the testing, tooki. This is good to keep in mind.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 10:04:34 pm
content: I guess it shows that I have worked in the past as a user interface designer, and as an informal tester at a software company that didn't have a QA department (so the support department ended up doing it as best we could)!

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2019, 11:15:53 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 10, 2019, 12:38:55 pmI just posted amessagewith multiple inline full size images, using the advanced plugin.When you upload the first image, it places the referenceCode:[attachimg=1]where your cursor is if you press the preview button. However, from the second image on, this doesn't work. What you have to do is to upload all the subsequent images and placeCode:[attachimg=2],Code:[attachimg=3]and so on manually where you want them inlined.

author: Shock
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2019, 12:27:33 pm
content: Dave if you remember back in 2013 I mentioned that you can addmax-widthto the CSS classes so that embedded/inline images and attachment thumbnails stay within their parent elements (prevents large images displaying off screen).This new mod embeds the image in a different manner and appears to have no defined class, so you may need to either add max-width to affect the element style in code or define a new class in the code and then add a corresponding CSS class. Here is a reminder of what you added last time to your themes CSS.Code:a img {max-width: 100%;}.bbc_img {max-width: 100%;}While you're at it another problem I told you a while back (that you might have missed) is when user names exceed 15 characters the text overflows into the message. You can fix this by either adding the below to the CSS to either wrap or hide the overflowing text (choose one). Or set the username character limit to 15 characters (if possible, which is probably the better idea).Code:.poster {overflow-wrap: break-word;overflow: hidden;}

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2019, 09:01:19 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on July 10, 2019, 11:15:53 pmYeah, I know. I explained that in my post. I bolded those passages in the quoted copy above, for your reference.And I'm not sure if you picked up on the fact that the IDs the forum software assigns to the images end up being different than the order they're attached, so inlining them as you write the post isnota viable approach, as the images will end up in the wrong places.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2019, 02:41:10 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 10, 2019, 10:04:34 pmYep, that it does.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2019, 04:42:33 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 11, 2019, 09:01:19 pmI forgot to say that I uploaded them one by one and pressed preview after each upload. That way they appeared in the right order. When you drag and drop multiple files it tends to sort them by size in the list. But I'm not sure what criterion it uses to attribute the IDs.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2019, 04:07:33 am
content: It looks like inline thumbnails are intended to expand in place, but it's failling. The thumbnail's link has an event handler that calls ILAexpandThumb() with the attachment number. However, when it's called it fails with the error, "TypeError: img is null".

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2019, 10:25:19 am
content: Quote from: bitseeker on July 18, 2019, 04:07:33 amThe inline thumbnails taking over the whole page is more of a nuisance than having to have them at the bottom of the text was!

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2019, 06:50:51 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 18, 2019, 10:25:19 amUmmm... what? The thumbnails don’t take over the whole page. Are you referring to the full-size image loading as a new page when clicking an inline thumbnail?

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2019, 09:28:42 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on July 18, 2019, 06:50:51 pmYeah, I mean after you've clicked on them to see the full size.I thought the idea was to have the new in-text thumbnails expand within the text, depending on the browser's pixel width, something likeInLine.jpg.If I click on one of the new in-text thumbnails I getNewInLine.jpg,and then have to use the back button to go back to the text.For me having the expanded image at the bottom/below the thin line was more convenient than the whole new image page version.Of course it could be something I don't know about firefox.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2019, 11:42:06 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 18, 2019, 09:28:42 pmNo, it’s not Firefox, it’s the bug I noticed earlier in this thread and which bitseeker just figured out the cause of in his last reply: the in-place image expansion is failing (which is supposed to “catch” the click on the thumbnail — which itself is a link — and expand in place instead of allowing the link to be followed). With the catching failing, the link is being followed and thus loading the image as a new page.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2019, 11:46:32 pm
content: Spot on, tooki.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 12:45:15 pm
content: "the link is being followed and thus loading the image as a new page."Is it going to be fixed?

author: Shock
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 01:35:54 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 30, 2019, 12:45:15 pmThere are 3 issues- the link is being followed is loading as a new page- when using the attachimg=1 tags oversize images do not auto width- user name length is spilling outside its parent element (least important)

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 08:35:47 am
content: The 5 MB per attachment limit might have to be increased to 25 MB so that ppl can post larger images.(4321.43 kB, 4000x3000)https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/rc-time-constant-205896/msg2632737/#msg2632737

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 08:47:52 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on August 22, 2019, 08:35:47 am

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 08:48:22 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on August 22, 2019, 08:35:47 amInsufficient memory to load page.Options:

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 08:48:51 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on August 22, 2019, 08:35:47 amNope, imo unacceptable, that is like accommodating lazyness, ignorance and prolly stupidity too.Comparison below ... original size is at 4.425.147 bytes...vs ... mine at 371.557 bytes, with same resolution and enhanced too. Actually that photo can be further resized and cropped to much much smaller resolution.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 08:58:12 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 22, 2019, 08:47:52 amWish there is a feature to limit new member on attachment size.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 09:09:30 am
content: "mine at 371.557 bytes,"How about 11 kB.I think a 1MB limit is more than enough.I can't open the original 4MB.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 09:12:24 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on August 22, 2019, 09:09:30 amYep, that is best.My post just to show to "others"that it can be much smaller, even maintaining at the same resolution.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 09:17:55 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on August 22, 2019, 09:09:30 amIf its me, I would do this below ... as picture 2.630 bytes ... or even better as LTSpice .ASC file 574 bytes.Yeah, its just me.For sure its dial-up modem friendly.

author: ledtester
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 09:20:43 am
content: The problem is that everyone has 12 megapixel cameras on their phones these days.What's really needed is smarter upload interface to automatically rescale/compress images or one that gives users the tools to do the rescaling at upload time.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 09:23:02 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on August 22, 2019, 09:12:24 amAnd me, it's a problem, but at the same time I realize many haven't years of experience of manipulating photos, or started when the interwebs worked at 300 baud.Silly.asc (0.56 kB - downloaded 1 times.)I don't know how that works so well, there's never been any LT on this PC.Ignore me, I was clicking on the .png one.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 09:25:46 am
content: Quote from: ledtester on August 22, 2019, 09:20:43 amSure, and insufficient intelligence to set the camera to take low res pics !Smart phones aren’t the problem, as always it’s the nutter behind the shutter.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 09:32:12 am
content: Quote from: StillTrying on August 22, 2019, 09:23:02 amLTSpice even its proprietary (free though), and not officially recognized as standard, at this forum alone I believe it is widely accepted, popular and recognized by majority.Well, for bigger circuits, that text based LTSpice .ASC file can be further compressed like using .ZIP , that yielded even smaller.Psstt .. try this below LTSpice .ASC as example ... only 2.300 bytes.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2019, 03:13:28 pm
content: Here's a simple, no-rocket-science solution that will work right 99% of time:Limit users with less than 100 posts to 3Mpx/300kB

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2019, 02:41:37 am
content: A forum plugin that enables the web browser to scale the images before uploading would be ideal. Have the default settings be something relatively small since those who won't bother to scale images themselves will just use the default. I checked the SMF customization area, but didn't see a mod that was client-side.By the way, there's a mod to use JPG for thumbnails instead of PNG:https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=879

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2019, 10:42:28 am
content: Quote from: ledtester on August 22, 2019, 09:20:43 amFWIW, iOS 13finallyadded the ability to resize images on upload. (And displays the image file size so you know whether resizing is needed.)

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2020, 09:05:07 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on July 30, 2019, 12:45:15 pmEvidently not. I am still irritated by the new image features, what with having so many more page loads, giant embeds, ...

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2020, 11:16:27 pm
content: Although broken in aspect ratio, at least it loads quickly.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 01:44:46 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 22, 2019, 09:25:46 amNo one wants to change their camera setting to take ow res pics, because then you forget to set it back and future photos you really want detail on suck.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 02:02:44 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2020, 01:44:46 amMembers are just lazy !Every image I have ever uploaded has been compressed and/or cropped.Recent screenshots are the only exception as they are small png files.It ain't that hard to compress an image ffs !While the forum's limits are far more generous than previously it's apparent some still have no regard for the readers that have data constraints and thus must wait for the nowlargeimages to download.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 02:50:40 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2020, 01:44:46 amUnless I am out and about I never really browse the Forum with a Tablet or Phone but in most but not all cases I use the Phone or Tablet to take pictures.Much as I run a NAS and Sync all my gear to it the easiest way to crop a few images from a device and get them into a sensible resolution for here is to email them to myself. Depending on your devices email systyem most I have used recently allow a quality setting prior to sending so effectively the processing is done when it hits my inbox.Preserves the original with no risk of overwriting it and if you want to do a few pics saves time by semi automating the process.For a final tweak Irfranview does it 90+% of the time for further simple adjustments for me at least and is more than up to Forum grade shots. Generally I aim to keep around the 100k/image as DSL around this country SUX so I know the pain of several 2Mb photos on a forum pageProviding you start with a decent shot little detail is lost down at 800 -1000 wide.

author: Shock
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 02:57:38 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2020, 01:44:46 amI'm not sure you have noticed the previous posts on this but there are several issues in the theme and since adding that plugin there is a few more.- clicking on the new embedded image links load a new page- the new embedded images do not auto width so spill out of the parent element- the new embedded images max resolution may be set too high or not being obeyed- user name length is spilling outside its parent element- high resolution users get a graphical glitch in some of the theme images

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 05:05:21 am
content: Quote from: Shock on February 20, 2020, 02:57:38 amOk, what can I do?Three options:1) Remove the plugin2) Pay someone to fix the plugin3) Ask the developers to fix it in the next update

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 05:31:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2020, 05:05:21 amDo you have a link to the Mod you installed? Likely a tweak to the CSS would resolve some of the issues Shock raised?User name length spill - I do not think there is a mod or setting for the current version 2.0+ of SMF to do this. I did do it in hard code in version 1.X but that is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. Best thing is either ignore it or one of the Mods beats up on the user responsible and talks with them about changing it.Just throwing this Auto/Manual resize mod here for you to take a look at too. It has been around for a fair number of years and the developer of it has kept it up to date with newer versions.https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=4087

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 05:36:20 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on February 20, 2020, 05:31:07 amhttps://www.smfpacks.com/au/I posted the bugs on the support forum, but last post for that plugin was 2017

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 05:38:59 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on February 20, 2020, 05:31:07 amDoesn't work, errors on install.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 05:43:42 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2020, 05:38:59 amIt is possible another mod and in particular the SMF Packs one conflicts with it. With the mods if they add or subtract bits from the base code trying to add a later mod will look for those prior to install sobut that is most likely.As the mod is an SMF Hacks one generally he doesn't show the code in the open in most cases. If you still have the downloaded mod email it my way and I am happy to take a look at it.Depending on the long awaited NON Beta release of 2.1Xsome of the functionality should be stockhttps://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=557913.0

author: Shock
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 07:32:16 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2020, 05:05:21 amI'd go for option 0) Fix it yourself and 4) Report it as a bug. I mentioned back in 2013 embedded links to images were overflowing and it looks like you fixed it yourself back then.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/whats-your-work-benchlab-look-like-post-some-pictures-of-your-lab/msg318164/#msg318164Here are some hints:1. clicking on the new embedded image links load a new pageNot looked at the plugin it's likely a php/html fix2. the new embedded images do not auto width so spill out of the parent elementTheme css using maxwidthhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/supporters-lounge/please-impose-a-limit-on-username-length/msg2784458/#msg27844583. the new embedded images max resolution may be set too high or not being obeyedInvestigate if there is a forum setting and the plugin obeys it, also fixed partially by the above css change unless the image is narrow width but overly long in height in which case something like max height will work as a css change in a worse case scenario. So in otherwords obey forums settings first, if no other option correct it in code.4. user name length is spilling outside its parent elementEither a css change or forum setting and retroactively change offending user nameshttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/supporters-lounge/please-impose-a-limit-on-username-length/msg2784458/#msg27844585. high resolution users get a graphical glitch in some of the theme imagesThere are a couple of images you can change, should have little impact on the forum if done righthttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/suggestions/eevblog-forum-site-have-a-bug-with-high-resolution-monitor/msg2552526/#msg2552526This is something that your admin should be able to help with as well if he knows CSS/HTML/PHP. Lets make it clear though, it's normal to have to make minor changes to themes and plugins. Just like in the real world it always pays to document what code you change and do it carefully and double check your work. Report it as a bug so when there is an update you can see if it's been corrected, or needs adding back in if they haven't touched it. Remember to make an easily restorable backup of files before making changes.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 12:41:21 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 20, 2020, 05:05:21 amIt doesn’t help that two image plugins were added at the same time, so we don’t know whether it’s a bug in one (or both) of the plugins, or two individually functional plugins that don’t get along, in which case we could decide which plugin’s features are more important.The CSS fixes in the theme should be easy to do, though.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 12:44:30 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on February 19, 2020, 11:16:27 pmWas that really necessary, dude? You could have proved that point without being obnoxious (a 262,000 pixel wide image isn't necessary to demonstrate the problem). You do realize that touchscreens don’t have page up/down/home/end keys, meaning tons of manual scrolling just so you can feel smart about knowing that images can compress...(On the iPad, it's rendered vertically, and without scroll bars. Not sure why, since it renders fine on desktop Safari.)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 12:56:09 pm
content: As a general note phones seem to suck at jpeg compression. Just re-saving the file on a PC makes it much smaller.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 01:01:37 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on February 20, 2020, 12:56:09 pmWell, the camera apps are no doubt tweaked to err on the side of maintaining image quality over size. I also suspect that many phones use hardware compression to save power, but this of course is often less space efficient and can't be updated.Quote from: blueskull on February 20, 2020, 01:00:05 pmI think valid, reproducible testing would be required before making such absurd claims.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 01:06:46 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on February 20, 2020, 01:01:37 pmi agree but then Blueskull is notorious for living in an alternative reality.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 01:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on February 20, 2020, 01:39:33 pmHm, OK.Quote from: blueskull on February 20, 2020, 01:39:33 pmIgnoring a forum mod/admin is a great way to get yourself banned, whether by announcing it like you did here, or by doing it silently and then not seeing a moderator's instructions to you in a reply you've hidden.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 02:11:46 pm
content: Is this even possible? On other forums, e.g. phpBB it was not possible to ignore moderators/admins.Gotta try that miself!Later edit:LOL, it worked. I can even ignore Dave (EEVblog) if I want to.It's funny 'cause it worked.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 08:28:26 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on February 20, 2020, 01:58:31 pmYou've been doing that for ages already

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2020, 11:10:53 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on February 20, 2020, 01:55:05 pmblueskull has been banned on multiple occasions.Y'know...Quote from: blueskull on February 20, 2020, 01:39:33 pm...When you want to disprove a statement, you don't actually do it by flat denial. You certainly don't do it by producing additional evidence in favor of the conclusion!Tim