Image Max Size (and vs. page load speed) - and what should max forum image sizes be?

[mclemore]

There is an eternal battle here with max image size vs page load speed.

Short of it: I'm going to start re-implementing max image dimension sizes, though the site should convert to a smaller size if necessary.

Long of it:

The site used to allow max image uploads of 200k. Then in March 2017, it increased to 500k (1-2MB for donors). Then at some point the limits were further increased.

Then at some point maybe 2-3 years ago users complained/suggested lifting the limits, especially since they wanted to upload: artwork files, and high-resolution schematics. So I did.

Now users are complaining that images sometimes take 10 or 30 seconds to download. I'm seeing it myself too.

Phones in particular keep offering larger and larger images. And that's where the problem starts, but not simply because of the file size. The larger file size while slowing downloads in and of itself isn't the key root of most of these problems these issues. Internet speeds are fast enough that in general a photo can be downloaded quickly.

I suspect there are two main problems:

• Network packet loss. As an image transfers to you, if a packet gets lost, the connection often waits 5 seconds and retries the packet to continue downloading the image. A single 5 second delay isn't that much of an issue. However, if there are multiple lots packets, that means multiple delays stacking up. And of course a large file sizes means more data and thus more changes for packet lost.
• More and more ISPs are using content caching proxies on their network, and the site itself uses a CDN. If content is requested that isn't in a cache, it likely in many systems has to be entirely downloaded into the proxy before it can start sending it to the end user.

What isn't the cause of the problem is server load. I spent some time on checking all sorts of server load potential issues this morning and found nothing. So the issues are likely related to network issues. Which doesn't eliminate the problem, nor the potential solutions.

So, it's time to re-implement max image sizes.

The question is what should the max image dimension be for the forums? 1200 pixels? (or 1000, 1600, or 2000?). It's not uncommon now for people to be uploading photos that have 4k dimensions, and climbing. And I may provide a (slightly) higher limit for donors, but (a) not materially so, and (b) not today.

Resizing the images also results in a more compressed image while still looking good. A test 4000x3000 image I uploaded with limits on at 1200 took a 2,258 KB image down to 79 KB.

Schematics can likely go in the manual section. And if anyone has a need for higher resolution uploads, those can probably go in the Media section of the forums. I can set different limits for those and traffic to that section is much much lighter...

BTW: To show how picture limits have increased over time...

1600x1200 px, 2MP - iPhone 3G
2048x1536 px, 3.15MP - iPhone 3GS
2592x1936 px, 5MP - iPhone 4, iPad 3 and newer
3264x2448 px, 8MP iPhone 4S, 5, 5S, 6
4032x3024 px, 12MP iPhone 6s, 7, 8, X, XR, XS, 11, 12, 13, 14
10800x2500 px, 27MP iPhone 4S, 5, 5S, 6 Panorama
16378x3834 px, 62MP iPhone 6S, 7, 8, X, XR, XS, 11, 12, 13 Panorama
8064x6048 px, 48MP iPhone 14 and 15 Pro

UPDATE 5/29/2024:

For the past year or more, we've set the max image & attachment size at 6MB on the forums, with a max of 10 images per post (previous to that it was 5), and each image could have dimensions up to 20,000 pixels in any direction (thumbnails are at 150 pixels are largest size).

Today I changed max image dimensions to 2000 in any direction. Anything larger than that will get auto-resized. It might make sense to reduce this further (to something like 1000, 1080, 1200, 1280, or 1600), but let's test a bit with 2000 first.

Several people have asked about having a max file size instead (that isn't as effective for lots of reasons, plus past a max file size the system will just reject the upload). And they have asked about auto-resizing images upon upload...which I'll address in this thread...

 

[DonPanetta]

slightly on topic with this, I've noticed for some time now that thumbnails are not being generated for very large images. This is happening both on the forums and the media section.

 

[dutchman]

Can we not have a max file size instead of resolution? Also, how about limiting it to something reasonable to cover 90% of the cases but have a separate upload option for special cases. I doubt people are uploading massive images in order to take down the server. Assuming that's true, this two tier approach would satisfy all needs and be relatively simple, wouldn't it? Also it helps encourage everything to be hosted here rather than linking to outside resources.

 

[Charles Kline]

Max length in any direction 1000px


But it shouldn't give an error when uploading, it should just resize the pic.


You could probably also default on the medium photo size upload. That way if someone needed to post something larger they could.
I posted long ago that the medium photo size should be adjusted. Right now the size options are full size gigantic and ity-bitty.

 

[DarrenF]

16x16 for sprites, with optional flip-bits. j/k

IMHO, If I have to scroll horizontally with a 1920-wide display, the image is too big. Forum-attached images should be for photos, snips, etc. Very high resolution stuff (including complete schematics, print-quality artwork, etc ) belong either in other places, or as message attachments such as ZIPs, PDFs, etc... not as in-line images.

I'm fine with any reasonable limit. 1000-pixels, 1200, 1600... all seem reasonable to me. I don't much mind even larger images, but it would be nice if it in-lined a scaled-down version and left you the option to click on it to get the full-monte giant file.

All this should be transparent to the user. Upload (almost) anything you want.. the system should downscale imagemagickally as needed.

 

[DonPanetta]

Max length in any direction 1000px

Respectfully Disagree.

I don't think we should be involved in causing another low-res dilemma. The vast majority of images on older forum posts and VAPS are already quite small for today's standards. We are in the hobby of preservation and sometimes that means preserving photos of rare things in the highest resolution possible.

 

[ChanceKJ]

Respectfully Disagree.

I don't think we should be involved in causing another low-res dilemma. The vast majority of images on older forum posts and VAPS are already quite small for today's standards. We are in the hobby of preservation and sometimes that means preserving photos of rare things in the highest resolution possible.

THIS.

 

[Azure Oz2]

I do think it is a backend issue, probably not server loading but something to do with the server finding and sending the image(s) from the image database in response to a page request.

I have connected using several different networks from average connections to a very reliable fast connection. It is most noticeable when an image is one of several in a post it seems to take forever to load the larger images, the thumbnails load quickly. The full screen images take much longer than any network delays and it is consistently slow which tends to say it is not network errors. I can transmit much larger images using the same connection quickly (to or from other sites) and uploading them in a post here does not seem to be as slow as displaying them in a post.

I understand if you need to limit sizes but that means some higher res pcb images will lose detail. Probably too much of an ask on the software side and server loading but it would be better to scale the original file on output if needed.

 

[Charles Kline]

Respectfully Disagree.

I don't think we should be involved in causing another low-res dilemma. The vast majority of images on older forum posts and VAPS are already quite small for today's standards. We are in the hobby of preservation and sometimes that means preserving photos of rare things in the highest resolution possible.

Read my whole post

 

[braedel]

For the end users (myself included), I take photos with whatever the native setting are on my phone. If I have to modify to upload, I probably won't. Ideally, we should be able to upload whatever size image, and the server should rescale if needed/necessary and/or create smaller (thumbnail) for loading within in the thread. The user would then have to click on the image to be presented with the higher resolution version.

~Brad

 

[ArcadeTechGW]

I think the best approach is a reasonable compromise.

Images - lock at 5 mb. That is enough detail.

For manuals (if we can do this in VAPS) some scans can be pretty large. Can we allow (may already) in VAPS that are larger?

And agree, auto-resize, not reject.

I had a similar problem on a root cause that had to be uploaded to Asset Suite (a large database program). The file size was so large it would ABEND (abnormal ending) and not upload.

I had to go into MS Word and resize the images to make them smaller.

You could still see them fine.

 

[dezbaz]

Yep, 5MB is enough
Enlargements can be linked to from a small image for big schematics etc

 

[tenjuna]

For my gaming forum website, I ended up putting in a gallery mod for this issue. You could try seeing if someone has made a mod for this forum software that will auto-reduce image size when they are uploaded. I don't what forum this is or what the back end is, but there are ways for many combos. You may even find something that will allow people to select the image size they want.

 

[DonPanetta]

Read my whole post

I did. There's still a number of forum limitations from having multiple resolution images. You have a thumbnail or full image. There is nothing in between. The only fix for this at the moment would be to disable inline images altogether- A move that will probably force people to either not upload at all or upload crappy res images.

For my gaming forum website, I ended up putting in a gallery mod for this issue. You could try seeing if someone has made a mod for this forum software that will auto-reduce image size when they are uploaded. I don't what forum this is or what the back end is, but there are ways for many combos. You may even find something that will allow people to select the image size they want.

We have one. The media section.

 

[r3v]

I suspect there are two main problems:

• Network packet loss. As an image transfers to you, if a packet gets lost, the connection often waits 5 seconds and retries the packet to continue downloading the image. A single 5 second delay isn't that much of an issue. However, if there are multiple lots packets, that means multiple delays stacking up. And of course a large file sizes means more data and thus more changes for packet lost.
• More and more ISPs are using content caching proxies on their network, and the site itself uses a CDN. If content is requested that isn't in a cache, it likely in many systems has to be entirely downloaded into the proxy before it can start sending it to the end user.

What isn't the cause of the problem is server load. I spent some time on checking all sorts of server load potential issues this morning and found nothing. So the issues are likely related to network issues. Which doesn't eliminate the problem, nor the potential solutions.

Looks to me like Cloudflare isn't caching images:

 

[Brentradio]

With the size of hard drive space today, I would have to say unlimited space for any picture. Whatever the upload size is, post it.

And keep them forever so every post always stays forever on the internet.

They say that the internet is forever.

But that's BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I challenge anyone to find a website called "thefartfactory.com" a long time ago.

The background was yellow. That's all you will find.

I built that site from the ground up way back in the day. I did everything except "Record The Farts".

That was Pappy's job.

We even had a school teacher who emailed us saying that everyday the class had to hear "Pappy's Fresh Fart Of The Day"

We even had a "100% REAL DEAL SEAL" to guarantee Pappy's farts were real. And I'm here to tell you they were.

We got emailed by a couple of old sisters who said they loved to listen to Pappy's farts on their porch because they always loved farting.

I used to laugh my ass off at the emails we got from people who said our farts were fake and no way they could be real. Mostly we got those emails from farts.com. I thought that was funny as most of their farts were fake.

Internet's forever. Somebody please dig that site up for me and then I will believe that's true. Otherwise it's just bullshit. The internet dies a slow death.

..

.

 

[Arcadenut]

The obvious answer is 1.21 Gigabytes...

 

[MIPS]

1280x1024 (or 1024x1280), or 1.5mb, whichever is smallest.
I believe Xenforo has a plugin for enforcing that both on attached image uploads or img tagged photos as to either cache and thumbnail or thumbnail them.

I've been paying to use Photobucket for 20 years now. Shit on Photobucket as much as you wish. The fact remains they are one of the oldest image hosts still around. and even though their pay tiers hit a roller coaster a few years back, my image links have never broken. The point is I've been on a strict 1024x768 size for two decades and I'm not even using 20gb for over 7000 images.

 

[mopar5150]

1920x1080 or 1280x1024. I use the Image resizer program to batch resize and rename photos that I post on forums. It is nice that we can post large photos when needed.

 

[mrbill2084]

For the end users (myself included), I take photos with whatever the native setting are on my phone. If I have to modify to upload, I probably won't. Ideally, we should be able to upload whatever size image, and the server should rescale if needed/necessary and/or create smaller (thumbnail) for loading within in the thread. The user would then have to click on the image to be presented with the higher resolution version.

~Brad

I agree with this. if you could have it auto scale down to a reasonable size, that would be great!

Maybe a time limit on larger files and auto scale them down after a week?