Image File Size Increase

D

dbdriskell

Guest
Forum Members:

It is obvious that due to higher resolution cameras, taking extra steps to further compress your image results in an image that could be improved upon.

In order to accomplish a higher degree of clarity and detail, the allowable image "file" size has been increased from a workable range of 375k upwards to about 400k.

The largest image width and height must be no more than 1000 pixels wide (you can disregard the height).

Example:
My camera is a 16.1 M Sony DSC-W650 camera. I have it setup for 16:2 wide screen at 12M.
My image pixel size of a photo came out to be 4608 x 2592 @ 4653k. (4.6M)

I open this image and resize it to 900 pixels and the graphics program auto resizes the height. Now my image pixel size is 900 x 562 @ 345k which should offer a much larger and much more detailed image for SOS forum use.

I hope this change will be agreeable. I realize that this will consume a little more server storage space, but at this point in time, I am not too concerned about it. I would rather invest for a higher quality experience.

Donnie
 
Hello Donnie,Watched some of your utube movies and thought that I had not heard of you lately,hope you and the admiral are well.Edwin
 
Brian,
I will go back again and look at all of this. It seems if I remember that if someone is using their own image hosting service like photobucket, flkr or something similar, then the posting (image LINK) will accept the 1000px wide as noted above.

The deal or ordeal comes into play if someone wants to use "SOS's Server" to host the image. Therefore the reduction in size of image is almost a must to maintain a sense of balance in size of image and the well being of the server (on my side that is).

But, again, let me look into this to make absolutlely sure as the configuration of the program is quite in depth in configuring image and file sizes and if the post is using SOS server or is just linking from another site.

Donnie
 
Follow this link to a previous post I made about image size. I just posted another image at 1000px X 562px at about 350kb in size.

http://shipsofscale.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=729&p=12361#p12361

The original image was huge (4608 x 2592) at about 5.6 Meg, and I resized it and then used a JPEG compression using Corel Paint Shop Pro X7 to 1000px X 562px at about 350kb in size. I think the compression was about 20:1 ratio.

Another thing to remember that for security reasons of the SOS server (of which I cannot disable that feature even if I wanted to --- its embedded coding) is that you MUST have some characters in the "posting body". It can be as simple as a dot or a period, that is if you wanted to "test" an upload.

You can also go to file explorer and look at the "details" of the image and make sure (as the file explorer doesn't lie) about file sizes. Even Corel PSPP X7 has difficulty determining the correct file size of an image. File size and image size are two completely unrelated concepts. Just take a picture of nothing but a black dark room and then take a picture of a pure white background. Then take one more of a "busy" image that is full of all sorts of things. Go to file explorer and then look at the "file sizes" of these three images. they will be different even though you have not resized anything.

Donnie
 
Hi Donnie, read with interest, again, your post about image size, as you may remember I also had a problem with image/file size. They are related the bigger the image the bigger the file.
Your (SoS) server is obviously based in the US, Brian is in the UK I'm in Australia, perhaps the problem lies in the distance from 'your' server. Do any members from Europe and Eastern Europe have the same issues? Perhaps our respective ISP's have issues with the larger images, my email (Outlook) will not send an email with a large image (2Mb)
I cannot post a picture larger than 106Kb, my pictures are resized to 900x600, the file size varies.

Regards
Eric
 
Hi Eric,
thanks for your input too. That is quite interesting about the diff countries accessing servers abroad. I will go and look one more time at my server settings to see if I am overlooking something.

Thanks for staying in tune on this.

Donnie

ps. Eric, would it be too much to ask if you could email me ( donnie@shipsofscale.com ) an image that is larger that you wish could be uploaded pixel size and file size as well. You said that 2M was largest email you can send, but at least that is still larger than 160k.
As I was thinking --- that number 160k keeps standing out in my head for some reason. I will go look at some settings. I thought I had all of this figured out at one time. Oh well, just trying to help you all.
 
Hi Sgtmik, the best 'wood' to use would (excuse pun) be plywood. Depending on the scale of your model you can use different thicknesses, on models 1:48 to 1:90 the keel and bulkheads are usually 3mm or 1/8th inch.
Are you scratch building a model?
When you start your build thread post all your questions there, more people will see it there.
Regards
Eric
 
Actually, there is a little more to this. I was looking at this post at my office which has a smaller monitor, which it WILL make the screen (of the forum) do some rather odd things.

I get home with another monitor which is larger (I think it is a 26") and now the 1000 pixel image attachments do NOT alter the forum layouts. (?) strange.

Donnie
 
Something to do with screen resolution. My monitor is 22" @ 1680x1050. On a 15" monitor the pages that have photos in them fill the screen, the "ads' on the sides do not show you have scroll sideways to see them.
So in light of the old adage "Size DOES matter!"
Eric
 
Eric,

it is those things just like that, that really causes a lot of 'design' problems with web page design. There are so many compromises to make.
That is why a lot of sites out there have the 'gutters' (as they say) on the side that have nothing but white or black space.
So, in light of that, web page design(ers) has to guess at to what 'most' people out there are using. I would say that the range is 22" up to about 28".

The monitor at my office (job) is set to resolution of 1680 x 1050 and it is a Dell E228 series and the forum site is optimized for that where there are NO horizontal scrolling that you need to do.

Donnie
 
Ok,
I know I do not have on my Admin hat right now, but in a way I do. I have been thinking about the image "file size" lately. Just for those that are just now following along on this age old topic and debate, please bookmark or remember this info.

Maybe I should submit a POLL. I have to use myself as an example. I have found personally that most all my uploads are 800 pixels wide x 600 pixels (and really depending), but the main part is the width. I have also found that usually, I compress my images down to NO more than 100Kb. Faster uploads, image still looks great and save a tremendous amount of bandwidth.

Also, for those that might not have a really fast internet connection, the download(s) of the images that appear come quicker into view.

Therefore, I am proposing basically the same measures here for everyone, but I really want to get your opinion. Not everyone has access to photo and graphic software that allows for compression (that allows the image to look its best). I cannot afford photoshop and yes, I know they have turned their service into a rental basis where you pay a small fee per month. Besides, I have found photoshop a steep learning curve that I just don't have time for. I personally use Corel Paint Shop Pro and found with a few clicks I can resize and compress that image to where it looks just as good as the original. I use a Canon T3i which is going to take a whopping huge file and yes, I also know I can make adjustments to the camera to reduce. But I rather start out with the largest file. My canon is set to 18Meg. No, I do not fool around with RAW files.

So let me get back to my original tutorial for those that are still new to the photo ordeal. Your picture that you take has a "file size" just like a word processing document, a spreadsheet or just whatever. There are two things in the photo world and especially when it comes to submitting photos for Forums in general. "file size" and "physical dimensions of image". My opinion of course. I just got finished with taking a few photos of the Mayflower box and a typical photo came out to be 5.6MEG at 5184px x 3456px, but wait. You multiply those two numbers and you get roughly 18Meg (well that is what my camera resolution is set to).
So whats the deal with the 5.6MEG. Well as a homework assignment, take your camera and take a picture of a pitch black room and then take a picture of a full lite white background and tell me what the "File Size" is. The point is that "File size" and "physical image size" are separate.
If I did this with my camera, I would still have a image size of 5184px x 3456px - that is not going to change, but what WILL change is what the CONTENT IS.

So what does this have to do with anything. Well, for the longest time, I have allowed every one to upload "attachments" as high as 350kb that is also roughly the same as saying .3MEG. Well, that is a lot. And now, I am saying that if you are good at compressing images with the right software program (which there are plenty out there for free), then we all can still upload "attachments" at roughly 100kb and still maintain a great image quality and have faster download speeds and be considerate of all users.

No, I am not going to go make any Admin adjustments to the back-end Admin Panel, but I want to simply "ask" if any of you are willing to just try making these small adjustments and see if you are still satisfied with the outcome of how your image looks on the forums.

Thanks
Donnie
 
I like the image to be 1,000 pixels wide and I do not have any program for re-sizing. I just use windows jpeg viewer. No software learning curve or hassle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top