Are "certain" people just retarded or my monitor is way outdated ? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 05:46:33 am
content: Really, it is very annoying to see attached photos with huge resolution like >4000s pixels wide X >3000s pixels height, or sometimes even bigger that are "embedded" in the post instead of in small thumb state.This happened way too often that sometimes I questioned if my 24" 1920 x 1200 pixels monitor is already obsoleted.I guess these particular people are just too stupid to know how to resize a photo.Also is there any SMF add-on that can limit the resolution of the uploaded photos ? This will definitely helps on Dave on maintaining his server storage capacity too.End rant.

author: houdini
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 05:51:26 am
content: You need a bigger monitor.

author: DavidDLC
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 05:52:05 am
content: What I hate more than bigger pictures/photos is people offending other people.I hope this forum does not get out of control with haters, offenders, people that think they know everything, and more....David.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 05:55:02 am
content: Quote from: DavidDLC on May 30, 2013, 05:52:05 amAppreciate and respect your view, but its my believe this kind of post is a necessary evil.And yes, I've considered and crafted this thread title thoughtfully, its not just a simple impulsive post.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 05:56:59 am
content: When I come across those over sized images I just skip over the post and don't spend time trying to view them. It's not my loss.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 06:14:49 am
content: Quote from: IanB on May 30, 2013, 05:56:59 amDon't think you can easily skip if the picture is "directly embedded" inside the posting, not like those in stamp sized thumb state that we can avoid to click if it has those giant resolution.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 06:23:03 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on May 30, 2013, 06:07:32 amNope, for me no tolerance for those who deliberately and fully aware that they've embedded giant photo directly inside their post, sometimes they don't even bothered to re-edit their own post with the newly resized photo later and just leave them like that permanently.Understand the limitation of certain conditions like you mentioned, but with uploaded giant photos as long they're not embed it in the post, they will be still in thumb state and can be easily skipped and perfectly fine.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 06:45:58 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on May 30, 2013, 06:23:03 amI don't care if deliberate or not.If someone wants to get his question answered and wants to be taken serious it is his job to make this postings readable, including taking the obvious limits of the system, like SMF, into account. It is not my job to sort through poo.Same for people doing other stupid thinks. I don't care if they deliberately "do it for the Lulz", because they were dropped as a baby, or because they don't care. They get their nose dipped in their poo, because I certainly don't want to have it.

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 06:51:01 am
content: I agree that some people should think before posting images.In most cases, a smaller picture will convey all the detail that's required - a large, grainy, phone camera image is no clearer for being supersized.And please, don't use the argument that 'I don't know how to resize a photo' - it's not rocket science.Try to post images using theAttachmentoption as it will automatically generate thumbnail images that are placed at the bottom of your post. If someone wants to look at a larger image, they can click on the thumbnail.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 07:11:19 am
content: Quote from: GeoffS on May 30, 2013, 06:51:01 amImo, in this age and era particularly in this specific forum, that kind of excuse if ever happened, should be considered as a major offense that deserved an instant & permanent ban upon reading them.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 07:19:19 am
content: Quote from: GeoffS on May 30, 2013, 06:51:01 amReally I think the fail of these thumbnails is the biggest problem here. They're too small to really tell anything, but if you upload a camera image directly, they resize to unusable size. Also the forum software's CSS causes the scroll bar to control the whole post, so it's even worse, you have to scroll down to the scroll bar, back to the image and so on. Really frustrating.The best option would be for the forum to handle this elegantly, make pagewidth thumbnails suitable for embedding clickable to full-size images opening in a separate tab. Hell just changing it so the existing thumbs open in a tab would be an improvement.Second best IMO would be for users to resize them to a reasonable pagewidth sort of size.It's of course always the poster's responsibility to make their post as usable as possible, but I think there is some leeway to be given here. The status quo on the forum is frankly crap. It's already a two-step process just to embed a photo you've attached to your post, and not really possible to include both a full size and reasonable size thumbnail in the same post, unless you go to the further step of creating them yourself and hosting them offsite. This is 2013, and these are the kinds of things computers are good at doing for us. We're spoiled elsewhere and expect better here.If the topic interests you, you're going to look at the images despite the minor hassle, but that hassle really doesn't need to be there and is frustrating on both sides; I'm sure many posters don't bother posting interesting images because it's a PITA to do it right. They are just as frustrated as us reading those posters who have decided that they'll do it lazily anyway because they think they may be of value to others but don't have the time to invest in preparing them nicely. Better something than nothing.tl;dr The reason this is even a problem is because you have to fight the forum software to do it properly. It's a pain in the ass for posters and readers alike, and it shouldn't be.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 07:28:30 am
content: I am always surprised that modern cameras take pictures at such huge resolutions.Most people-email the photos-post them to facebook-post them online-look at them on their monitorI bet most people would be well served by 1280x1024 pixels, or less... they should make the full resolution an optional setting - the people that need/want it would know how to activate the setting.

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 07:49:00 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on May 30, 2013, 05:46:33 amNot that I can find. There are modifications to limit image size for images linked to an external site (photobucket, etc) and to limit the size of the upload based on file extension but nothing that limits the dimensions of an uploaded image.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 09:09:19 am
content: What may be handy is some text that tells you max photo width when you press attach.

author: gerrysweeney
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 09:25:16 am
content: Ah a good old rant......thought I would have my 10 cents worth...I have spent many years working with all sorts of people from all walks of life and I have to say I have given up (in a positive way) expecting people to do what to me would seem obvious. The fact is human beings don't all see things the same way and in my experience people don't put over-sized photo's on a post, or use (what looks like to me) stupid file and folder names on network shares to p*&& others off, there is generally no intent on their part - so "having a go" at them or "showing no tolerance" does not really get you anywhere, in fact it borders on bullying.I agree with @IanB, if such an image offends you just ignore it and don't bother looking at it.The fact is we live a "customer centric" world that today recognises that people are in fact "fallible" so in acceptance of that fact I would have another take on it. Software like this SMF forums software we are using is outdated.....and here is why. Look at some big success stories, Apple, Google, YouTube, Flickr and many others they are good at one specific thing which is empowering users to achieve something great through creating a good user experience, which you would argue would otherwise definitely be beyond an individuals capability. Lets take YouTube, I doubt many people would argue that youtube is anything but a good service right? (if you don't agree with that point you may as well skip the rest of what I have to say as I am likely to seem inadequate in some way!) Well imagine if every user had to upload video in a certain format, size, frame rate, colour space and resolution, well youtube would be no more....what youtube and many other services figured out al long time ago is they need to deal with the complexity so their users don't have to - and thats what makes them so successful. That does not mean that people are stupid or incapable, even if that was true, why should it matter, should stupid or technically incapable people not have the right to post their content to youtube - of course they should.So back to this forum software, I would argue that if this software handled images properly and dealt with scaling on the behalf of the user (like Facebook does for example) then your problem would go away because your over-sensitivity to over-sided images would not be experienced and the poster would not need to be concerned that your particular sensitive spot is over-sized images and someone else's is image position etc...computers and the internet are here to help us, they are not here to create a tech crowd elitism...so your complaint really ought to be about this forum software and not the people posting images that look to big IMHO...no doubt not everyone will agree with me but I would expect nothing less - we are all human after all.Gerry

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 10:14:57 am
content: Gerry, you are arguing everyone needs to be pampered and spoon-feed in exactly the manner they want it. Every time, everywhere, and everyone else has to stand buy to provide that service exactly that at the right time.The thing is, life is to short to waste time on figuring out how exactly each individuuuual wants to have his back rubbed in exactly the right way.

author: gerrysweeney
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 10:21:23 am
content: @Board@Work, I guess I am, but so is @BravoV, the only difference is, I am arguing for the computers to do the work, BravoV (and I guess you) are arguing that he should be pampered by everyone else doing things just right in a way that suits him....and thats not how the world works weather we like it or not.Gerry

author: 8086
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 10:26:02 am
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on May 30, 2013, 10:14:57 amMuch like yourself then?

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 11:18:45 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on May 30, 2013, 05:46:33 amor you are using outdated browser that doesnt support scaling (fit to screen)

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 11:34:41 am
content: Quote from: 8086 on May 30, 2013, 10:26:02 amIt is a question who comes with his hat in his hand. And that is the one asking a question. It is in his best interest to rub those who can answer at least remotely in the right way, by following a few established standards, instead of giving a flying fart.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 11:36:41 am
content: Text deletedModerator: Let's keep this on topic and not resort to personal attacks.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 12:43:31 pm
content: Sigh... i've been through this with another person here.My camera sensor has whatever many pixels it has, there's no point into snapping the picture at a smaller pixel count - the camera will either just resize the picture inside or not use certain sensor pixels. It shoots at 3200 something, so i never change it.All the forums I visit accept up to 4000px jpg pictures and ALL either:* do a resize to 1024x768 and offer the full size image when you click a SECOND time on the picture* load the whole picture but autoresized in a box that shows up on top of the forum page (javascript)So at no point are users inconvenienced by the uploaded pictures when it comes to size.The only downsize is the pictures sizes, usually 200 to 500 KB for such large pictures.Thing is, I got so used to having a good internet connection (100mbps cable) that I often forget others have weaker connections and just don't think about the file size.Only some forums have issues with this file size but most just have rules not to use [ img ] tags to put them inline in the page if they're large size, because users can actually click at the post footer and have the pictures show nicely on page.I honestly try to resize and re-save to about 75% quality when I post pictures, but sometimes it just happens.You also have to understand you may be in minority here. 60-80% of the people that have cameras with high resolution cameras and high resolution monitors shouldn't have to adapt to 20% of the people,I have two monitors on my desk, both 1920 pixels wide. Yeah, I'm still mildly annoyed when there's a 3000 px picture here, but it's only because the forum doesn't autoresize it, not because it's large.

author: gerrysweeney
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 12:47:20 pm
content: Wow, I was moderated out....constructive comment obviously not welcome here....

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 12:51:14 pm
content: Quote from: gerrysweeney on May 30, 2013, 12:47:20 pmNo, the reason your post was deleted is that it was a reply to or quoted another post that was deleted - perhaps while you were making your post.While the forum does give you a warning if a post has been added to a thread while you're composing a reply, it doesn't do the same if a previous post is deleted.It had nothing to do with the content of your post.

author: gerrysweeney
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 12:53:16 pm
content: Quote from: GeoffS on May 30, 2013, 12:51:14 pmHi Geoff, my apologies in that case, I was wondering why, now I know. I can't remember what I wrote now so I won't bother trying to re-post, I guess the point is already made. Thanks for a quick response.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 01:23:29 pm
content: QuoteI'm not - it's because the manufacturers got into a "more pixels = better" marketing dick-size war.SMF supports width & height attributes for images so it really isn't hard, you just have to add width=1024 (or thereabouts) to your image tag.I suspect that the problem is the many people genuinely don't understand how big the images are because every other tool auto-resizes them to the display size.There are some SMF extensions to improve image handling on custom.simplemachines.org. I don't know whether Dave would be willing to have a look at any of them but I'm sure he could find something to help without having to start writing code himself.

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 01:30:16 pm
content: I've spent a bit of time this evening looking at SMF patches (modifications) and can't find any that really help with image size issue.As pointed out, it is possible to change the way a large image is displayed by changing image tags but the user should have to resort to this level of hackery - the forum software should take care of it.Perhaps someone could make their fame and fortune by writing such a modification? Well fame maybe, OK, grudging admiration...Until then, it's a problem we'll have to live with.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 01:57:36 pm
content: See these two:http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=2518http://portamx.com/3005/tip-highslide-for-rescaled-inline-images/Both use HighSlide (javascript) library to rescale the images and all that :http://highslide.com/

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 02:02:43 pm
content: Orhttp://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1197

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 02:11:16 pm
content: I must admit the sort of mod I was looking for was one that reduced the size of the stored image rather than just rescaling it to suit display conditions.This would reduce the amount of disk space that images use, a great help to Dave's reported backup issues.Of the two SMF mods mentioned above, one is not compatible with the version of SMF used in this forum, the other can't be installed automatically and requires multiple files to be edited. Doing so presents a real risk of breaking the forums over what is a minor, although annoying, issue.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 02:18:18 pm
content: Something like thishttp://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=252, then?

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 02:26:36 pm
content: Quote from: GeoffS on May 30, 2013, 07:49:00 amSince it's a linux box you could use imagemagick (mogrify) the rescale large pictures stored locally. For external pictures there are two solutions. Simply fetch the picture and store it locally (prevents also broken posts if the picture drifted into the void) while using mogrify. Or scale them down by HTML (just for displaying, but the large picture is fetched anyway by the browser).

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 02:30:30 pm
content: Quote from: madires on May 30, 2013, 02:26:36 pmAny solution will need to be plug-n-play and not one that requires programming, testing etc, Dave doesn't have a dedicated IT team to support any other sort of solution.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 02:46:13 pm
content: You could implement one of the solutions that just resize the image in browser.It would still be better than nothing, and can be removed when you figure out a solution to have the images resized on upload.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 03:17:10 pm
content: I have a 17 inch LG LCD monitor 1280×1024 pixels. It's enough for me. When it's PSU breaks down, I will replace it in a minute, because it's an external 12V power supply.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 03:29:06 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on May 30, 2013, 03:17:10 pmEventually the CFL lamps with die out and you'll find out that when you add the shipping, they often cost more than a new or second hand 19-21" monitor.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 03:32:06 pm
content: Quote from: GeoffS on May 30, 2013, 02:30:30 pmPlease seehttp://docs.simplemachines.org/index.php?topic=89.0at the bottom:"Resize images when showing under Post - Limit the size of the image when displaying within the forum. This is useful when you have specified a width for your entire Forum and you do not want the image to stretch further distorting your Forum look."

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 03:43:03 pm
content: If it is a picture i typically scale it to 1024 768. Unless i want to show as much detail as possible , like a teardown picture where tou can read all part numbers.As for screenshots. I try to scale em too . But the point is that today a lot of people run dual monitor setups... So in my case a 3840 1200 screengrab would be possible... ( i have 1920-1200 monitors la2405x from HP)

author: steve30
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 03:56:14 pm
content: For reference, I like how phpBB3 handles embedded images and attachments. I think it does it much better than this forum.For an idea, seehttp://68kmla.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=525&start=575.(Not sure if that page requires login or not).Unfortunately I don't know how to actually go about improving SMF.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 03:58:08 pm
content: Quote from: mariush on May 30, 2013, 03:29:06 pmOK, I am not gonna use that monitor forever.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 05:14:15 pm
content: limiting upload dimensions (not file size) or resizing server side post facto are BAD, sometimes you want to show that pcb in detail and you need that 3000x1800 picture. Its fine as it is (having to click to make it bigger)

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2013, 01:31:50 am
content: Quote from: Rasz on May 30, 2013, 05:14:15 pmWhen this is necessary, you can post a link to an external image on a remote site such as dropbox, photobucket, etc.This seems to work quite well on other forums on which I'm a member, especially those that run software which allows the administrator to limit photo size (dimensions) as well as file size.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2013, 05:53:59 am
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on May 30, 2013, 11:34:41 amFrom your attitude I would say the question is more whether you consider your fellow posters peers or otherwise. Not every discussion on this board is about someone seeking help.Quote from: Rasz on May 30, 2013, 05:14:15 pmI tend to agree. Server-side resize is a blunt instrument. If you're not willing to store both a display-size thumbnail AND the full-size image, I'd argue that just keeping the full-size image and resizing in browser is the better option. Storage is cheap and most people have plentiful bandwidth as well. Also the browser-side fix is much simpler to implement.I never noticed that SMF supports a width attribute for img tags. That's helpful.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2013, 08:21:39 am
content: Here's a little snippet of CSS that will cause images to resize to the width of the user's browser window:Code:<style>.bbc_img {width: 100%;}</style>

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2013, 08:23:09 am
content: Quote from: amyk on May 31, 2013, 08:21:39 amAnd how exactly is a user supposed to use this?

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2013, 08:46:15 am
content: QuoteAs long as it isn't applied to all images indiscriminately because I edit mine down to an appropriate size (and host them myself unless it's a *very* quick post) and would be a bit put off if mine were stretched to fill the browser window no matter what.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2013, 09:11:12 am
content: Quote from: GeoffS on May 31, 2013, 08:23:09 amIts for website .css filebut good browsers have something called user.css, you can even enforce it with userjs/greasemonkey

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 31, 2013, 08:05:31 pm
content: This CSS would probably be better to globally make it so that by default any image will not attempt to display more than 1024 pixels wide (or make the max width whatever you want).Code:img{max-width:1024px;}It would be added to the custom CSS file for the forum theme, or if the admin console has a way to inject custom CSS via a configuration setting.Users would not need to do anything differently.It would not do anything about storage quotas - you could still upload files as large as you want.I'm pretty sure the width attribute on the img tag that you can use with BBCode would still work (for the advanced users who tend to make use of BBCode or know enough about it to alter the image tags that get inserted into posts).------------The best solution is a PictureBox module (sometimes called a "Lightbox") for the forum.And I continue to stand by my own interim solution of hosting the images in my own posts on a site like imgur and remote-linking to them to eliminate storage costs, and then always specifying the width attribute on the img tag in BBCode format so that the posting shows up the way you want it to.------------For most forums, I would agree with the sentiment that people need to have their hands held. But this isn't a typical forum. We are kind of expected to be somewhat technical and have some basic comfort with computers.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2013, 08:27:01 pm
content: Quote from: MacAttak on May 31, 2013, 08:05:31 pmProblem with that is that half a year, or a year from now, imgur and other hosts may go bye bye (bankrupt, bought by others etc) or they may delete old files and then some forum member tries to see your post and your pictures and they no longer resolve to anything.The old excuses (pictures taking too much disk space, too much backup space, daily backup takes too long), bandwidth is expensive etc... are just excuses, and weak ones.You can add a 500GB-1TB disk to a server for 5-15$ a month, you can get 100 mbps unmetered bandwidth for under 100$ a month (server included), backups should be incremental (backup only differences not the whole drive) etc etcThe only valid reason against large pictures is imho that takes too long for pages to load to people with slow connections...a good idea would be to store on the server both a 800x600/1024x768 version AND the original full size picture. Then, when clicking on thumbnail, show the resized picture with a link at the bottom of the picture to the full picture.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 08:13:35 am
content: Quote from: mariush on May 31, 2013, 08:27:01 pmThis is how it works right now, by default you get ~100x100 thumbnails, they only change to original big image if you click them.This is perfect and "just works". I really dont know what the "just retarded" OP was about when he created this topic.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 11:09:26 am
content: Quote from: Rasz on June 01, 2013, 08:13:35 amPeople putting the huge images inline in their posts.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 11:13:06 am
content: go on ebay get one of the big ones usual fitted with crap caps , buy a broken one fix it job done I did just that.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 11:33:11 am
content: Quote from: amyk on June 01, 2013, 11:09:26 amproper forum css should cover that.

author: 4to20Milliamps
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 02:58:29 pm
content: Big pictures don't bother me......but I don't have ocpd.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 04:10:36 pm
content: Quote from: Rasz on May 31, 2013, 09:11:12 amThat remark was good for a chuckle!I suspect that the crowd that uses greasemonkey will be of the sort that actually knows how to press the[Resize This Megapixel Shit]button in their image processing software of choice.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 04:55:17 pm
content: Quote from: mrflibble on June 01, 2013, 04:10:36 pmumm you are mixing two things-people that link huge images with img tag-people that are clueless and post derogatory topics here because they dont know how to make browser resize stuff on their endIn my browser simply clicking CTRL-F11 will force webpage to be scaled properly on the screen. In other browsers you might need to make user.css file to fix that.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 08:02:11 pm
content: Just messing with an install of a blank forum on my machine here; and the thumb display option is driven with...Code:// If the image is too large to show inline, make it a popup.if (( (!empty($modSettings['max_image_width']) && $attachmentData[$i]['real_width'] > $modSettings['max_image_width']) || (!empty($modSettings['max_image_height']) && $attachmentData[$i]['real_height'] > $modSettings['max_image_height'])))$attachmentData[$i]['thumbnail']['javascript'] = 'return reqWin(\'' . $attachmentData[$i]['href'] . ';image\', ' . ($attachment['width'] + 20) . ', ' . ($attachment['height'] + 20) . ', true);';else$attachmentData[$i]['thumbnail']['javascript'] = 'return expandThumb(' . $attachment['id_attach'] . ');';If I upload a big PCB image to my forum and force it to use the ...Code:$attachmentData[$i]['thumbnail']['javascript'] = 'return reqWin(\'' . $attachmentData[$i]['href'] . ';image\', ' . ($attachment['width'] + 20) . ', ' . ($attachment['height'] + 20) . ', true);';It seems to open the large image in a nice window - which is something I've never actually seen before in a forum.I'm pretty new to the forum Admin section but I can't find the setting to tweak the "max_image_width" I can see the value in the db tables but is it a setting in the admin area?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 09:01:53 pm
content: I can't find the setting in the admin section - so if you wanted you could hack some values to the "smf_settings" table and the fields "max_image_width" and "max_image_height" the values would need to be the smallest embedded image before you'd want to click to open the popup window for giant images; so something like 768 might be suitable.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 09:23:16 pm
content: Quote from: jucole on June 01, 2013, 08:02:11 pmConfiguration / LayoutMax width of posted pictures (0 = disable)Max height of posted pictures (0 = disable)

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 09:27:35 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on June 01, 2013, 09:23:16 pmah thanks, found it! :-)

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 09:44:32 pm
content: This thread exploded! With good reason though. While I'm guilty of posting some, the giant photo thing is kind of annoying. There really should be a better picture storage/presentation system for posts built in.What I end up doing is resizing the whole browser tab when I'm looking at the photos (CTRL+mouse wheel on firefox) so they fit on the screen without any horizontal scrolling and then resizing it back when reading the text. This is actually really fast to do and doesn't bother me too much. It's kind of nice to have high rez pictures of PCBs and things with text on them, so I don't mind too much anymore.

author: ee851
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 10:02:52 pm
content: It irks me too to see full-resolution digital photographs on my outdated and dinky 15 inch CRT. It would be nice the forum provided a storage area for the digital photographs, so that theauthor could just provide a hypertext link that clickin upon would download the full-res. photo. However, that could eat up a lot of space of the forum server if a significant fraction of posters start making use of it. As in more than a quarter. But I think it would be better than simply automatically displaying in your browser a very, very, very tiny viewport on a very, very, very, very large high-res. image.GIMP is a good application program for making digital images smaller.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2013, 11:26:27 am
content: I did a bit more hacking around with the SMF code and found that the tweak in my other post worked ok with the large uploaded attached image, but it didn't solve the inline image problem, so I tried a little hack; so now in my test forum when you add a massive inline image and click the thumb instead of calling..Code:this.style.width = this.style.height = this.style.width == 'auto' ? null : 'auto';which sets the nice thumb size to something ridiculously massive!I replaced it with..Code:reqWin( this.src, 1024, 768, false);Which instead opens a nice popup; which is exactly what happens when you upload a big image. It would be nice to add bit of code to get the image size and intelligently work out whether a popup is needed etc; or you could perhaps detect multiple images and popup a cute slideshow.[edit: the above line of code can be found in "themes\default\scripts\theme.js" ~ Line 34]

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2013, 11:44:05 am
content: So the answer to the OP question is "neither"

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2013, 04:12:51 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on June 01, 2013, 09:44:32 pmYes, its a big success looking at the view counts imo.With the current 1300 views, and also presumably multiple views by same active posters in here, I'd say take or give, its quite safe to assume that this thread has reached at least 10% of this forum members which are currently about 7000. Personally I'm happy with this figure.Quote from: jucole on June 02, 2013, 11:44:05 amI see this as a complete closure, finally, someone who actually responded to this rhetorical question, appreciate that, thank you.Also thanks to other posters that actually responding this thread by giving some technical contributions through suggestions, although not sure if those can be easily implemented here by Dave. If you're serious and committed to pursue it, please help Dave by launching a new thread at the forum's Suggestions section.Interestingly this thread is quite good at catching trolls too, yeah, identified few of them by voluntarily showing their attitude through their post.For sure I'm not going to win a popularity contest by launching this thread in this forum, especially with these "carefully" crafted title. Sorry guys, had to do it.Lets hope post with giant inline photo will be much less.Thread closed and let this sink down to the bottom, again, thanks.