Old Forum Issue Reports

[Matthew Tucker]

Originally Posted by Anselm Hauke

hi tim,
the file is a 1,2 mb jpg, i tried it several times since yesterday evening (GMT).
don´t know if i made something wrong.

1,2Mb is pretty big for a jpeg upload in most cases.

try resizing your image to 600x800 and save at 75% jpg quality

that should bring it down to a manageable 100k or so ...

[Anselm Hauke]

hi matthew,

thanks for your suggestion.
i don´t think filesize is the problem. 5MB is max. allowed, and i posted bigger ones then the 1,2mb pic.
but i will try to reduce it.

[Matthew Tucker]

the point is, for display on a screen, even 500k is big. 5mb is huge and unnecessary. All the pics on my site are around 75k in size, and unless you need the high resolution it just slows things right down, particularly uploading. Anything can happen in the midde of a big upload.

[Anselm Hauke]

...yes, but: i think in most cases thats ok but i wanted to post big pics in a thread (called: auguste sebastian bernadel; its in the old french sub-forum)
where its important to see as many details as possible. i think its better to judge a bass of disputable origin (if this is possible at all in an internetforum...) if the pics shown are really hi-res.

[Bob Faulkner]

Originally Posted by Anselm Hauke

...yes, but: i think in most cases thats ok but i wanted to post big pics in a thread (called: auguste sebastian bernadel; its in the old french sub-forum)
where its important to see as many details as possible. i think its better to judge a bass of disputable origin (if this is possible at all in an internetforum...) if the pics shown are really hi-res.

I was ready to come to your defense on this one as the texture of the woods and other fine details are lost when you scale down a photo to a lower resolution. In this kind of environment I want to see the details, and large files are the only way to get it.

[Matthew Tucker]

compare these two. same size, different compression. One is 530k and the other is 66k. Not a LOT of difference IMO. You couldn't say image 1 is ten times as good as image 2. And image 2 uploads and downloads in a flash ...

[Anselm Hauke]

...okok
i resized the pic and was able to post it here:http://www.smithbassforums.com/showt...=1738#post1738


..but again: 5 mb are allowed, i posted some 1 - 1,5mb pics before - why doesn´t it work now? (i just tryed to upload the original pics without success)

[Tim Bishop]

When all else fails, punt!

[Bob Faulkner]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

compare these two. same size, different compression. One is 530k and the other is 66k. Not a LOT of difference IMO. You couldn't say image 1 is ten times as good as image 2. And image 2 uploads and downloads in a flash ...

Image 2 looks like it's been run through a blur filter. Subtle details have been washed out. Some of the small nicks and scratches, etc are washed out. The flame and grain patterns in some of the areas of the bass where the contrast lessens is washed out, and almost completely gone in some areas.

High compression is fine for random pics of the kids.

When it comes to these beautiful things, I'll wait for image 1 to download.. Thanks!

[Mike Smith]

As far as compression and jpg's go.. I believe it all has to do with the program your saving it with.. If you can obtain a copy of Photoshop, or PaintShop Pro, you're in good hands as far as saving stuff with great quality and low size. If your using paint, and you need to save with higher quality, it will almost always give you a smaller sized image with not so great quality; you'll notice blotching/blurring on certain elements, and it's NOT a good alternative when you need to post detail such as grain patterns, labels, anything else that people would want to see, etc.

[Matthew Tucker]

Originally Posted by Bob Faulkner

Image 2 looks like it's been run through a blur filter. Subtle details have been washed out.

It was just an indication. No blur filter, just more compression. Of course bigger files will contain more detail. Its a matter of knowing what the usage is, and where to draw the line.

Maybe these two are better. One file is seven times as big as the other. the only difference is compression level. The detail in both, as far as I can see, is good.

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

It was just an indication. No blur filter, just more compression. Of course bigger files will contain more detail. Its a matter of knowing what the usage is, and where to draw the line.

Maybe these two are better. One file is seven times as big as the other. the only difference is compression level. The detail in both, as far as I can see, is good.

Looks great to me!

[Mike Smith]

Originally Posted by Anselm Hauke

...okok
i resized the pic and was able to post it here:http://www.smithbassforums.com/showt...=1738#post1738


..but again: 5 mb are allowed, i posted some 1 - 1,5mb pics before - why doesn´t it work now? (i just tryed to upload the original pics without success)

That's odd.. So your saying that the batch of original pictures you've taken bring you to a sever error message while when you resized them, the work fine? If you don't mind, I'd like to take some of those pictures off your hands and take a look at them myself, just to see if the same thing happeneds when I try to upload them, or when I modify them and then upload them.

Also, I'm going to take the limit down to 2MB, after further consideration, anything greater than 2MB does sound extreme, only a fairly raw image will need more than that. If you needed assistance uploading a larger image then that, you could send me a email with the images so that I could compress or slice them up into multiple images.

[Bob Faulkner]

but.. but.. what about my PNG files!?!?!

lossless all the way!!

[Mike Smith]

Originally Posted by Bob Faulkner

but.. but.. what about my PNG files!?!?!

lossless all the way!!

Yeah, I'm not really a fan of .png or .bmp for the reason of their bulky sizes when .jpg can handle all that while keeping fairly small and with great quality if you've got the software to do that for you.

If you do happen to have a batch of .png files, send em over my way and I'll convert them to .jpg's if you wish

[Bob Faulkner]

I was kidding, but I do like PNG's for certain applications. I store my photos in PNG so I always have a lossless original to work from.

Anything that involves limited bandwidth I shoot for jpeg files.

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Bob Faulkner

I was kidding, but I do like PNG's for certain applications. I store my photos in PNG so I always have a lossless original to work from.

Anything that involves limited bandwidth I shoot for jpeg files.

Ahh yes, the Tech environment is soooo much fun! Mike, you sure make it easier on us though.

[Mike Smith]

Originally Posted by Tim Bishop

Ahh yes, the Tech environment is soooo much fun! Mike, you sure make it easier on us though.

I'm sure I can try One of the hardest parts about being a techie is how to cope with non-techies It's all about communication

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Mike Smith

I'm sure I can try One of the hardest parts about being a techie is how to cope with non-techies It's all about communication

Just like playing music Mike. It's all about communication!

[Bob Faulkner]

I have only 2 modes. In Mode 0 I think in binary. In mode 1 I think in intervals.