Question: What are the max pixel dimensions needed? 0

[Architecht]

Hi all,

I have seen some people noting that it's frustrating to attach an image that is too large, and that they don't want to have to re-size those images themselves.

There IS a setting on the boards that automatically re-sizes images to constrain file size. HERE is how it works: We set a maximum width and height of pixel dimensions. Anything attached to a post that is larger than that gets sized down to the maximum dimensions.

If the dimensions we set are reasonable, we can probably tune the file size limit and the automatic re-sizer to play well together (avoiding problems like a resized image is still too big too attach).

BEFORE I go down this path, though, I wanted to get some feedback from everyone about what a the maximum needed width and height of an image would be for the general purposes on the boards - e.g. selling threads, asking for grading opinions, etc.

What do you guys think is needed?

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

SAY!! I like the sound of it  

Not sure what deminsions pixels etc. myself, due to resizing and different pixels, I don't know what I eventually get to work that also helps other's see what they need to.

If you look at my track record in "spare a grade" I must not be doing to well at to be honest, so if you can help us noob's I'm all for it. Thanks in advance  

[Architecht]

Here is an example for reference / gut check. The below image (that I stole from the grading forum) is:

284KB

JPG

915 x 1365 pixels

YOU MAY NEED TO RIGHT CLICK AND OPEN IN A NEW WINDOW TO SEE IT FULL SIZE if your resolution is low

 

 

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Three fiddy

[ADAMANTIUM]

Looks big enough to me, I was just tired of hearing my pics were too big  I don't know if it was the pixels and the specific comic that had too many details causing the "size" to be too big idk

This all sounds a little naughty 

[Architecht]

Here is another point of reference:

1.9MB

JPG

2550x3509 pixels

YOU WILL NEED TO RIGHT CLICK AND VIEW IN A NEW WINDOW TO SEE ITS TRUE SIZE AND THEN CLICK ON IT TO FULLY ZOOM IN

http://i.imgur.com/yN53OUy.jpg&key=bb75595d423a8cc7bdf5b347172520f88a8907d9e3850d2d739075f334619e7e

 

[Architecht]

Lots of views few replies. Are you guys boycotting my question or did I just get too technical?

[skypinkblu]

I haven't had a problem uploading images since the first few days and then only with one or two. The image you posted looks great to me. Bigger than that always seems too big, and used to mess up the old forum when you tried to scroll.

Any chance you can add a cropping tool to the image resizer you get when you double click? I think I asked that the other day, but I have no idea where I asked it.

oh and @Architecht

Edited February 28, 2017 by skypinkblu
added the @ thingy

[Sqeggs]

3 hours ago, Architecht said:

Lots of views few replies. Are you guys boycotting my question or did I just get too technical?

Ok. I had no success in dragging images in the first days after the changeover, but this time it worked.  Whatever you do, do not try to explain why it now works! 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Sqeggs

[bronze_rules]

 

I think the first (915X1365 pixels) size, is a fine default size to auto-adjust and display. It does appear (to me) to be a bit larger than a typical,

show us your comics thread display -- so maybe a (smaller) default size that is some kind of average of those is a better fit? I like the slightly smaller

typical sizes, as they allow us to quickly scroll through and assimilate covers at a rate we are used to.   

I also like the idea of normalizing (so to speak) images to a standard scale.

see PS below.

 

Constraining images to (default) display  at a fixed (max) size is a great idea.   It can be annoying to scroll through pages and run into some (possibly unintended) images taking up huge amounts of space.

That being said, there are some cases where posters may want an alternate size to be accessible to the user. So it would be nice to have the ability to

auto  display at a (max) default resolution, but keep intact a link to an off-site storage facility for users to view the alternate sized link.  Or even an on-site alternative

link that requires clicking to access. I say on-off site, because I've been reading the image postings are easier (I haven't tried yet), and I assume they

can now be loaded locally.

 

One other idea,  would be to have some kind of collapsible post option with a max default (single post) view size, where we could uncollapse (via +/- button?) to see all the poster's attached images or verbose quote links.

An example would be where a poster (Greggy?) posts like 50 comic images on one thread post and you have to scroll through tons of pages to get to the next post every time.

It can be off putting (no-offense to Greggy, I could only wish to have 1/2 the quantity to post), to have to scroll through many pages of a single thread post, in order to get to the next post.

Especially, if we've already seen the thread post and are going back to view new posts periodically.

 

PS. regarding my striked out comments.  I re-read the original post, and see now that it is only constraining images to a max area. So users could easily post a smaller size, without it getting altered. So, the default max limit is great. But, I still like the idea of having access to a larger intended size via a text link.

Edited March 1, 2017 by bronze_rules

[Martin Sinescu]

I think at about 1200 on the longest dimension (typically the height) you can get plenty large, probably bigger than is necessary here, and still keep the file size pretty small. Typically I resize my stuff for eBay at 1600 and keep the res at 360 yet file sizes still stay under 1 MB. 

[divad]

11 hours ago, Architecht said:

Here is another point of reference:

1.9MB

JPG

2550x3509 pixels

YOU WILL NEED TO RIGHT CLICK AND VIEW IN A NEW WINDOW TO SEE ITS TRUE SIZE AND THEN CLICK ON IT TO FULLY ZOOM IN

http://i.imgur.com/yN53OUy.jpg&key=bb75595d423a8cc7bdf5b347172520f88a8907d9e3850d2d739075f334619e7e

 

This one is bigger than necessary, but the first example is just a tad too small to my liking.  Remember we're either viewing on a 17" or larger monitor or a cell phone . . . I think standard resizing to 1200 X 1600 might work with a maximum content of about 1 to 1.4 megs.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by divad

[Doohickamabob]

I don't like it when the images blow out the tables on the display of the message screen. I don't think the display size of an image should be more than 1000 pixels width. Height can be a little more since it scrolls in that direction. The old boards had the max width at 800 (really more like 775 when you accounted for the nested quotes and such), which was a little too narrow.

Ideally, the site should display images smaller with an option to click and enlarge (and the enlarged image could then be something substantial, like 1600 max pixels as another person here stated). That would reduce scrolling for reading/browsing purposes. The "recently back from CGC thread" is an example where the multiple postings of many larger-sized images makes browsing that thread rather tedious.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Doohickamabob

[crassus]

When I post my scans are all 885 x 1147 and range from 450KB to just under 700KB. I am at present able to drag and drop in fc and bc scans easily into each post, for me at any rate the present 1.95 MB max is perfect.

[Architecht]

Hey,

We also can control the initial display size of an attached photo as a thumbnail - this allows you to click through to the large version of the scan, while minimizing the initial appearance in the thread. Right now it's set for a max of 800x1200, which is almost the full size we currently allow. This makes the initial view quiet large, and the larger zoom in not that much bigger.

QUESTION: Would it be better to make the initial view of the attached image very thumbnail-sized by default? Much smaller? Saving scroll time past images you don't want to look at? (Please think about all places this would occur, sales threads, grading help threads, "club" threads, etc.)

@crassus @Doohickamabob @divad @bronze_rules @skypinkblu

[Doohickamabob]

I think it would be advantageous if the images appeared as thumbnails. However, and this is a big however -- there are probably people who wouldn't want their images to display this way.

The best solution I can think of (at the moment) would be for there to be an option for each user to adjust the way images are displayed while reading. Somebody who likes the big images could keep them displaying that way, and somebody who feels that they clutter up the experience could elect to have them show up as thumbnails.

Another option would be that messages with one image get displayed normally, but 2 images get turned into 50% size thumbnails (side by side), three images are displayed at 33%, etc. until finally ending at a uniform size for 4+ images. I don't know how complicated this kind of thing would be to program, or whether it would be worth it...

I can think of all sorts of pros and cons for various options. I like seeing the image when somebody posts one really cool picture. I get reaaaalllly worn down by images when people post 4 in a row, or when people quote other people repeatedly and you see the same image a dozen times.

I also think the display size and the click-to-enlarge size should be different enough to avoid making that option pointless. It's goofy to click on an 800-width image just to get a 900-width image, etc.

Oh yeah, I guess you'd want to factor in the whole "smartphone experience" side of this as well. (I am used to zooming in the smartphone so it doesn't make a big difference to me.)

Those are just some thoughts off the top of my head...

[BOOT]

On 2/28/2017 at 2:16 PM, Architecht said:

Here is an example for reference / gut check. The below image (that I stole from the grading forum) is:

284KB

JPG

915 x 1365 pixels

YOU MAY NEED TO RIGHT CLICK AND OPEN IN A NEW WINDOW TO SEE IT FULL SIZE if your resolution is low

 

 

I think your gut is right on this. This seems to be a great max size.

The larger file you posted seems like overkill.

I strongly suggest not having thumbnails as a default. If people want to make their images thumbnails, that is fine. But seeing the full image on first glance is preferable to having to click through.

Thanks for the chance to share input!

[Doohickamabob]

Here's another idea: The first time an image is posted, it is full-size (or resized by the forum's software to fit its ideal max dimension).

BUT... When the image is quoted in a reply, it's a thumbnail.

 

[crassus]

5 hours ago, Doohickamabob said:

Here's another idea: The first time an image is posted, it is full-size (or resized by the forum's software to fit its ideal max dimension).

BUT... When the image is quoted in a reply, it's a thumbnail.

 

This is a good idea. Personally I would like to see the full size in the first instance, but your idea would at least eliminate the unnecessary duplication of the full sized version, and this would be especially useful in big sales threads.

[Doohickamabob]

19 hours ago, crassus said:

This is a good idea. Personally I would like to see the full size in the first instance, but your idea would at least eliminate the unnecessary duplication of the full sized version, and this would be especially useful in big sales threads.

Would this be easy to program? What do you think, Architecht?