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

Why not do the Pinside solution and implement the option for users to select what size they upload from a dropdown. It also always defaults to "medium" every time you want to make a post, but it gives you the option, thus allowing users to decide if their content needs to be original res or not. (thats a really BAD explanation of how its done, so if you're not a pinside user and you don't know what im talking about, go experience it before saying its a shit idea) lol. Personally I feel like a lot (but not all) of the development and ideas on Pinside are just better than most other online forums out there.


IMG_8705.jpeg


Rant: One of the single most frustrating things I face in both my personal photo album, and the archive of the internet as a whole is coming across an image I need years/decades after it was taken/saved/uploaded and its the size of a postage stamp and looks like it was taken with a potato. I know decades ago we really didn't have much control over that given the quality of our cameras and download speeds of our ISPs, but its still massively frustrating.
 
My Rant is when you click on an image to get the bigger version, you actually get the same size or smaller! That shit is annoying :)
 
Is there no way to automatically display a reduced size version with the option of clicking for "full size" that you could add some language like "click for full size (loading time varies depending on image size), or the option to download to your computer in full size or something to that effect? I also think that limiting size of certainly images is a big step backwards but I understand the speed issues...
 
Why not do the Pinside solution and implement the option for users to select what size they upload from a dropdown. It also always defaults to "medium" every time you want to make a post, but it gives you the option, thus allowing users to decide if their content needs to be original res or not. (thats a really BAD explanation of how its done, so if you're not a pinside user and you don't know what im talking about, go experience it before saying its a shit idea) lol. Personally I feel like a lot (but not all) of the development and ideas on Pinside are just better than most other online forums out there.


View attachment 745276


Rant: One of the single most frustrating things I face in both my personal photo album, and the archive of the internet as a whole is coming across an image I need years/decades after it was taken/saved/uploaded and its the size of a postage stamp and looks like it was taken with a potato. I know decades ago we really didn't have much control over that given the quality of our cameras and download speeds of our ISPs, but its still massively frustrating.

Because there are only two sizes currently. Thumbnail and full size.

My Rant is when you click on an image to get the bigger version, you actually get the same size or smaller! That shit is annoying :)

Examples?

Is there no way to automatically display a reduced size version with the option of clicking for "full size" that you could add some language like "click for full size (loading time varies depending on image size), or the option to download to your computer in full size or something to that effect? I also think that limiting size of certainly images is a big step backwards but I understand the speed issues...

We already have that.
 
I just added the first post in the thread and added:

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...

More:

Currently resizing occurs on the server side. The current version of Xenforo is 2.2. Version 2.3 is in beta and likely to come out in the next 6 months I'd guess. The new version will attempt to move much of the resizing to the browser itself so the server doesn't have to deal with it, and is also working to allow forums to convert images to .webp format, which will make them faster loading but makes doing anything with them less user friendly with people without modern tools.

Resizing in browser: https://xenforo.com/community/threa...-image-resizing-and-more.217014/#post-1650359

WebP conversion option: https://xenforo.com/community/threa...-image-resizing-and-more.217014/#post-1650358


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.... Also it helps encourage everything to be hosted here rather than linking to outside resources.

Max file size simply blocks the upload, which is extremely user unfriendly. Xenforo treats an image as an attachment, and attachments can be jpgs or pdfs or other things. It doesn't try to resize. It rejects. And its like the correct decision. As far as linking to outside resources... for reasons well laid out in other threads, we'll continue to slowly end support for third party image hosting.

Max length in any direction 1000px
We may get there... for today 2000px (down from 20,000px) which is a big step in the right direction.
But it shouldn't give an error when uploading, it should just resize the pic.
That's how it should work.
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.
That isn't technically simple... and would involve a substantial hijacking of how Xenforo works which would create more headaches when new versions come out. If someone really needs to upload something larger, there are other places on site to do so.

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.
That's a trade off, isn't it. Xenforo's upcoming v3.3 with webp support may give us the best of all current worlds at this time. It may allow max resolutions with smaller file size, especially with some optimizations. Few people will be trying and printing full size posters from forum posts.

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...
My thoughts exactly.

Yep, 5MB is enough
Enlargements can be linked to from a small image for big schematics etc
We are currently at 6MB so 5 isn't too much different. It's just still way too much for an average forum post image. Now most images can be resized with 98-99% of the quality and 10-25% of the file size. Unfortunately, at the moment, there isn't a great way to auto process an image unless it exceeds the image dimension limits. Again, Xenforo 3.3 might help with this, so maybe we just have to get settings 'good enough' for now.
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.

When Photobucket got rid of their free plan, it broke a lot of images here. We rescued 50,000 of them that we still haven't found the time to relink to the proper posts here. The problem isn't with Photobucket, it's will all external hosting in general. The Photobucket incident was just one of many issues external hosting has caused here.

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?

Interesting idea, but images less than a week old get traffic and thus are part of problem we are trying to solve here.

Why not do the Pinside solution and implement the option for users to select what size they upload from a dropdown. It also always defaults to "medium" every time you want to make a post, but it gives you the option, thus allowing users to decide if their content needs to be original res or not. (thats a really BAD explanation of how its done, so if you're not a pinside user and you don't know what im talking about, go experience it before saying its a shit idea) lol. Personally I feel like a lot (but not all) of the development and ideas on Pinside are just better than most other online forums out there.

It's an interesting idea. I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being the purpose of an add-on after Xenforo 3.3 comes out. I do worry though that it also might be too much feature creep. I myself like over-engineering everything and giving users lots of options, but many times users use tools that are simpler, and giving them too many options reduces use. I'd be curious how often on Pinside people choose a non-default size on upload.

Is there no way to automatically display a reduced size version with the option of clicking for "full size" that you could add some language like "click for full size (loading time varies depending on image size), or the option to download to your computer in full size or something to that effect? I also think that limiting size of certainly images is a big step backwards but I understand the speed issues...

This would require storing not only the display size of an image, but also the 'original'. I can suggest it on the Xenforo forums and see if it gets any traction, but I'm guessing it will not.

--
There was a mention in one of the posts about some larger images not getting thumbnails properly generated. If you have a good example (or better yet, something reproducible) please let me know. Is this for current threads or historic?
--
There are addons that will auto compress and auto convert existing images on the forum. However, the main ones are written by an add-on developer that IMO has a history of buggy and problematic code. So if we ever do anything on old images, it may likely be with custom scripting.
 
It's an interesting idea. I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being the purpose of an add-on after Xenforo 3.3 comes out. I do worry though that it also might be too much feature creep. I myself like over-engineering everything and giving users lots of options, but many times users use tools that are simpler, and giving them too many options reduces use. I'd be curious how often on Pinside people choose a non-default size on upload.
Ah, but there in lies the middle ground, some people will absolutely choose to set it to high/original res, but I'd say the vast majority will just avoid choice because the setting of Medium is "Good enough". You'd get decent size images for most, thus saving bandwidth and storage, and the odd person would crank it up where needed to the max res.

As far as I know Pinside has had this functionality for over a decade. And with them being as forward thinking as they are when it comes to site dev, If it wasn't working for them they would have changed it by now.

Far as I can see they only thing they've added was that extra entry for no rescaling on PDF/GIFs. So it must be working well across the board.
 
Btw, here we see examples of images resized down to 2000 pixels (555kb). Is everyone happy with the detail? It seems ok to me on my phone but will we complain in a couple years when coming back to the images for a closer look at something?

 
As pointed out below, 1.5mb for an image is still able to make a massive photo. The problem is most phones will give you something stupid like a 4mb or more 4K or larger image. Without cropping this blows out the sidescrolling on a page and wastes massive amounts of bandwidth. Most forums now have plugins to at least auto-shrink the image if it goes beyond a given resolution but you are still forced to download an image many megabytes in size.

It's funny. A decade ago I'd get complaints about posting a 6mb gif. Now Grandpa Boomer on some auto forums might use 6mb to post one 8K potato cellphone image of a bent kingpin.
 
As pointed out below, 1.5mb for an image is still able to make a massive photo. The problem is most phones will give you something stupid like a 4mb or more 4K or larger image. Without cropping this blows out the sidescrolling on a page and wastes massive amounts of bandwidth. Most forums now have plugins to at least auto-shrink the image if it goes beyond a given resolution but you are still forced to download an image many megabytes in size.

It's funny. A decade ago I'd get complaints about posting a 6mb gif. Now Grandpa Boomer on some auto forums might use 6mb to post one 8K potato cellphone image of a bent kingpin.
File size != image quality, you've got too many variables to play with: image compression, color depth, format, metadata, even complexity. A 1440p image of size art is going to be a lot smaller than a 1440p image of a motherboard. I'm in the group of wanting those large files: if I'm buying something, I'd love the most detailed photo possible so I know exactly what I'm getting.

It's not like it's the 1990s, either. People have gigabit internet, 4G/5G cellular plans with unlimited data so a few 3~5MB images on a post shouldn't be an issue. For reference, medium resolution streaming from Netflix or a 720p Youtube video is 720MB per hour (12MB per second.)

Look at sites like reddit.com, they don't have any restrictions on image size and serve millions of people. Images busting the sidebar is a forum problem, there's no reason image width can't be autoset to 100% vs actual pixel width, and slow image downloading while the rest of the content loads immediately is either a low-cost file hosting or CDN problem. (my 2 cents)
 
File size != image quality, you've got too many variables to play with: image compression, color depth, format, metadata, even complexity.
And?

A 1440p image of size art is going to be a lot smaller than a 1440p image of a motherboard.
See above.

I'm in the group of wanting those large files: if I'm buying something, I'd love the most detailed photo possible so I know exactly what I'm getting.
Cool. Now lets consider this forum isn't just the marketplace subforum. Sure trying to sell decal sets on thumbnails isn't reasonable but if you are saying 1280 x 720 isn't enough to see all the details that matter and you are also nit picking color depth, format and metadata, go touch grass. This is a forum, not a properly setup online storefront. You can ask the seller for better photos if you want.

It's not like it's the 1990s, either. People have gigabit internet, 4G/5G cellular plans with unlimited data so a few 3~5MB images on a post shouldn't be an issue.
Just because you are in the 60% of the developed world when it comes to high-speed internet doesn't mean the forum has to build the universe around you. I can assure you I too have high-speed fiber but I don't subscribe to the idea of "the resources are there so why not use them all?" because in the world of software at least it's a narrow minded idea that ignores that perhaps OTHER things need to use those costly resources (bandwidth) at the same time?

Look at sites like reddit.com, they don't have any restrictions on image size and serve millions of people.
I don't take advice from discussion boards with a whole section devoted to talking about and smoking meth.
Also, reddit is privately (and if you include Tencent they are also state) funded. They can afford to run an entire back-end for high volume image and video hosting.
 
Last edited:
Cool. Now lets consider this forum isn't just the marketplace subforum. Sure trying to sell decal sets on thumbnails isn't reasonable but if you are saying 1280 x 720 isn't enough to see all the details that matter and you are also nit picking color depth, format and metadata, go touch grass. This is a forum, not a properly setup online storefront. You can ask the seller for better photos if you want.
It's an arcade preservation website, I'd imagine we'd want best quality images the platform is capable of handling. Mclemore has already stated he doesn't think internet speed is an issue. A lot of complaints are from images being too-wide (destroying side bars), but again image width != image size.

A core piece of the forum is trade, how do these buyers provide better photos if they're already limited to your suggested image restrictions? Create a mosaic of multiple images? Third-party hosting? With the risks of scams/getting scammed, good luck getting a seller or buyer to share their personal email address or number to send you some higher quality photos.

Just because you are in the 60% of the developed world when it comes to high-speed internet doesn't mean the forum has to build the universe around you. I can assure you I too have high-speed fiber but I don't subscribe to the idea of "the resources are there so why not use them all?" because in the world of software at least it's a narrow minded idea that ignores that perhaps OTHER things need to use those costly resources (bandwidth) at the same time?
I'd imagine the intent would be providing a general product that meets the needs of the majority, not focused on the minority. Should KLOV restrict image size to 240p because one guy wants to browse the forums from a 2G Blackberry? If 'costly' bandwidth is your concern, why not hide profile pics too?

I think the changes mclemore has made are a viable compromise between the two, especially with manuals/schematics have their own section for hosting as those are the ones people would want the highest resolution available.

I don't take advice from discussion boards with a whole section devoted to talking about and smoking meth.
Also, reddit is privately (and if you include Tencent they are also state) funded. They can afford to run an entire back-end for high volume image and video hosting.
There is nothing wrong with looking at how other platforms operate and see what works and what doesn't, but it's very narrow-minded to ignore an entire platform's technology capabilities because you disagree with a subset fraction of information hosted on it. I don't agree with Elon Musk but that's not keeping me from looking at Tesla/EV technology.
 
@mclemore, did this image resize support change recently? I can no longer upload images my my iPhone. They upload ok, briefly display, then suddenly disappear with a message that the image is too large. There seems to be no way to post pictures without first copying them to my computer and resizing them.
 
@mclemore, did this image resize support change recently? I can no longer upload images my my iPhone. They upload ok, briefly display, then suddenly disappear with a message that the image is too large. There seems to be no way to post pictures without first copying them to my computer and resizing them.

This was done to prevent crazy sized pictures from being uploaded and bogging the forums down. The best thing you can do is either drop the resolution on your phone when taking pics for klov or use an app to resize them before uploading.
 
This was done to prevent crazy sized pictures from being uploaded and bogging the forums down. The best thing you can do is either drop the resolution on your phone when taking pics for klov or use an app to resize them before uploading.

That's freaking annoying.


The max size should be set to whatever the default iphone image size is.
 
There was logic to automatically reduce the size of uploaded pictures. If we aren't going to allow the larger images, this automatic resizing is a great answer. I certainly don't want to change the settings in my phone just to be able to upload the occasional picture here.
 
This was done to prevent crazy sized pictures from being uploaded and bogging the forums down. The best thing you can do is either drop the resolution on your phone when taking pics for klov or use an app to resize them before uploading.

Whatever happened to the auto-resize feature? We really need that back!

I no longer post photos to KLOV if I'm on my phone. And I'm leaning toward that for my PC too. Why should I do the work when it can be automated at the gatekeeper choke point?

I see more people complaining about this and the default camera photo sizes are only going to increase over time. People are lazy and we're already losing "might have been" content because of this issue.
 
That's freaking annoying.


The max size should be set to whatever the default iphone image size is.

Which iphone? the 2048maxpro with 9 lenses?

Whatever happened to the auto-resize feature? We really need that back!

I no longer post photos to KLOV if I'm on my phone. And I'm leaning toward that for my PC too. Why should I do the work when it can be automated at the gatekeeper choke point?

I see more people complaining about this and the default camera photo sizes are only going to increase over time. People are lazy and we're already losing "might have been" content because of this issue.

Xenforo's responsive layout resizes the original image to fit your device screen size dynamically. It never automatically increased or decreased the resolution of your images. Most servers have backend programs like Imagemagick that do this based on parameters that you or your web software configure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r3v
I was able to upload images until recently so something must have changed. If we weren't automatically resizing the images then maybe that can be implemented? The answer shouldn't be that we have to move them to a computer to resize them first.
 
Back
Top Bottom