Poll

How big is still tolerable for you

traffic smaller than 100 KB / image
2 (1.3%)
traffic smaller than 200 KB / image
7 (4.5%)
traffic smaller than 500 KB / image
19 (12.1%)
traffic smaller than 1 MB / image
12 (7.6%)
traffic smaller than 2 MB / image
2 (1.3%)
I don't care about the traffic
36 (22.9%)
resolution smaller than 0.5 MP (960x540, qHD)
5 (3.2%)
resolution smaller than 1 MP (1280x720, HD)
16 (10.2%)
resolution smaller than 2 MP (1920x1080, Full HD)
14 (8.9%)
resolution smaller than 8 MP (3840x2160, 4K UHD)
4 (2.5%)
I don't care about the resolution
40 (25.5%)

Total Members Voted: 89

Author Topic: NEW FORUM UPLOAD FEATURES  (Read 19651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online RoGeorgeTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7011
  • Country: ro
NEW FORUM UPLOAD FEATURES
« on: July 01, 2019, 10:29:57 am »
EEVblog keep the attached images as thumbnails at the end of each post, so they wont make too much traffic unless a thumbnail is clicked.  Good for speed and traffic, bad for more complex posts when the images need to be kept between the lines of text in order to make sense.

Some of us have slower internet or expensive data plans, so how much traffic is still acceptable for you?

Is there any way to have click-able embedded thumbnails, so they expand only when clicked and still be located between the lines of the text, not all in bulk at the end of each post like it is now on EEVblog?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 04:34:43 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20355
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2019, 11:16:14 am »
Just keep the images as small as possible.

I've noticed some people wasting space by saving schematics in 32-bit colour depth, at a much higher resolution than necessary. I keep my schematics small by using <8-bit colour depth (often 1-bit) no transparency and a fairly low resolution. Most of my attachments are under 10kB.
 
The following users thanked this post: StillTrying

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2019, 11:20:57 am »
In my experience Flickr works very good to add images to postings. The forum itself is no good at all when it comes to embedding images.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Muttley Snickers

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2389
  • Country: au
  • Cursed: 679 times
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2019, 11:27:02 am »
As mentioned in another thread, posts are currently set for up to 5000kB per image which I think is well above what is necessary for general conversation and visual indications, high definition macros are a different kettle of fish altogether and people should still have the option of opening them or not.

News - Attachments
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/news/change-attachments/msg2488080/#msg2488080   
 

Offline Berni

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5050
  • Country: si
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2019, 11:29:54 am »
Like this?

Text text and more text


text text text.
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2850
  • Country: se
  • Country: Broken Britain
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2019, 11:46:08 am »
for more complex posts when the images need to be kept between the lines of text in order to make sense.

We've been asking to be able to embed the thumbnails within the text for years.

Quote
Some of us have slower internet or expensive data plans, so how much traffic is still acceptable for you?

I don't mind 2.2MB if it's needed, and especially if is a clickable thumbnail which you'll only have to look at once, or less.
Problem is now people are posting self opening 2.5MB images when 120kB would do, pages full of large images are a pain.

Quote
Is there any way to have click-able embedded thumbnails.

Embedded clickable thumbnails would be fine with me because you could click them back to a thumbnail to see the text.
.  That took much longer than I thought it would.
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2850
  • Country: se
  • Country: Broken Britain
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2019, 11:50:36 am »
Like this?

So of, but browsers are still downloading the 23,766 bytes thumbnail AND the 789,779 bytes image even if not clicked on.
.  That took much longer than I thought it would.
 

Offline Berni

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5050
  • Country: si
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2019, 12:58:51 pm »
Well i prefer it that way because i don't have to wait for the image to load, i get the big image as soon as i click it.

But i do have a 150Mbit fiber connection and no data cap.
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9318
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2019, 01:02:14 pm »
I propose an idea that reduces the need to open the full image: Increase the thumbnail size to something like 640x480 or 800x600.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20355
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2019, 03:05:31 pm »
I propose an idea that reduces the need to open the full image: Increase the thumbnail size to something like 640x480 or 800x600.
That won't always save space/bandwidth, because the forum software always saves thumbnails with a 32-colour depth, which would mean the thumbnails for many schematics will end up being much larger than the original file. In fact this is already often the case, for lots of my schematics, even with the current 100x100 thumbnail size, but it's a non-issue because the file sizes are still tiny.

Here's an example:

Thumbnail file size: 4.12kB


Original file size: 1.53kB
 
The following users thanked this post: Kleinstein

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9318
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2019, 04:13:58 pm »
Wouldn't it be trivial to add a bit of logic to check if the thumbnail is a bigger file, in which case make the thumbnail a symbolic link to the original image?
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: 00
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2019, 04:16:28 pm »
Just keep the images as small as possible.

I've noticed some people wasting space by saving schematics in 32-bit colour depth, at a much higher resolution than necessary. I keep my schematics small by using <8-bit colour depth (often 1-bit) no transparency and a fairly low resolution. Most of my attachments are under 10kB.

Good policy. I try to keep the resolution of my drawings, photos and screen captures less than VGA (640x480). When they're "big", HD (1280X720), tops. The size of their files range from 30kB to 500KB. My drawings use no transparency. But it hasn't crossed my mind that when they're monochrome I could convert the picture to B&W and save space. I'll use this expedient whenever possible from now on.
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2850
  • Country: se
  • Country: Broken Britain
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2019, 05:03:25 pm »
Well i prefer it that way because i don't have to wait for the image to load, i get the big image as soon as i click it.

Your 771.27 KB image doesn't matter that much but in the past we've had 40MB+ of self-opening images in just one post.

because the forum software always saves thumbnails with a 32-colour depth,

I didn't know that, the thumbnails for my 9.5kB 800x480 16 colour .gifs are only 2.5kB.

Increase the thumbnail size to something like 640x480 or 800x600.

LOL
.  That took much longer than I thought it would.
 

Offline MarkF

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2762
  • Country: us
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2019, 05:37:09 pm »
Here are two examples of what gets my goat!  (Sorry to the users I pulled these examples from.)
Take a moment to crop.

I also have a CSS style to limit the photo height to my screen size.

POSTED:
         

PREFERRED:
         


POSTED:
         

PREFERRED:
         

« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 06:48:34 pm by MarkF »
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20355
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2019, 06:17:04 pm »
But it hasn't crossed my mind that when they're monochrome I could convert the picture to B&W and save space. I'll use this expedient whenever possible from now on.
Just use Gimp to reduce the image to indexed, with a maximum palette of 256 colours and export to PNG. PNG supports 1-bit, 2-bit, 4-bit and 8-bit indexed modes and Gimp will automatically select the correct one, so if it has two colours, you'll get a 1-bit PNG.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 10:31:56 am by Zero999 »
 
The following users thanked this post: NiHaoMike

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9318
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2019, 07:48:14 pm »
I try to keep the resolution of my drawings, photos and screen captures less than VGA (640x480). When they're "big", HD (1280X720), tops.
That seems way outdated in today's day and age. I generally target 1080p except when it would clearly be overkill or is insufficient to show relevant detail. Pretty much every PC monitor I see for sale nowadays is at least 1080p. Once 1440p or 4K becomes mainstream to the extent 1080p is now, that would become my new target.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Online RoGeorgeTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7011
  • Country: ro
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2019, 11:09:56 pm »
For the PNGs is pretty straightforward how to minimize their side.  Unfortunately PNG is good only for schematics or screen captures, where there are large areas of the same color.  PNG is not compressing well when there are variable shades and colors, as pictures usually have.

For pictures JPG is still the best compromise.  I tried a few resolutions at different compressions for JPGs.

If the pics are resized to 1024x768 then exported with 50% compression (from Gimp), then the size is reduced from a typical 2MB (for my Z1 camera) to only 30...70KB.

As an example, a huge post like this, https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/measure-a-magnets-b-field-with-a-rigol-ds1054z-oscilloscope-and-a-piece-of-wire/ with 4 photos and 6 oscilloscope screen's captures, all embedded at full size between text, has only 500KB in total!   8)

Thank you all for the help   :)

Offline bsfeechannel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: 00
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2019, 03:57:57 am »
Just use Gimp to reduce the image to indexed, with a maximum palette of 256 colours and export to PNG. PNG supports 1-bit, 4-bit and 8-bit indexed modes and Gimp will automatically select the correct one, so it it has two colours, you'll get a 1-bit PNG.

Ha! Awesome! I managed to reduce an 8-bit png image from 37kB to just 1-bit 2.8kB. My free-hand trace appears a little jagged (because of the loss of the smoothing gray scale) , but what the heck? The resulting file is less than one tenth of the original file in size. Thanks a bunch for the tip.

That seems way outdated in today's day and age. I generally target 1080p except when it would clearly be overkill or is insufficient to show relevant detail. Pretty much every PC monitor I see for sale nowadays is at least 1080p. Once 1440p or 4K becomes mainstream to the extent 1080p is now, that would become my new target.

Well I always think of the cell phone viewers with low resolution screens and/or slow/limited bandwidth connections.

I think these resolutions provide a reasonable experience on both mobile and desktop. If I ever have to show for some reason a larger picture, I'll leave it as the default clickable thumbnail at the end of the message.
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9318
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2019, 04:58:03 am »
The mobile site is different from the desktop version, and that's where the suggestion to upsize the thumbnails really helps - make them double as the default mobile images!
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline Berni

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5050
  • Country: si
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2019, 05:01:26 am »
Yeah monochrome PNG for diagrams is a big time space saver, GIF also does pretty well here.

But you certainly don't want to save a photo as a PNG. Because of it being a losses format it tries to perfectly replicate the noise and compression artifacts and this results in files that are many times larger than JPEG. But those big 5MB JPEGs from a modern phone camera can certainly be squeezed down a lot. The image quality of such photos is often not that great anyway so there is no major quality loss in resampling the image to 1/2 scale or turning up the jpeg compression factor higher.
 

Online RoGeorgeTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7011
  • Country: ro
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2019, 05:27:33 am »
use Gimp to reduce the image to indexed, with a maximum palette of 256 colours

I tried indexed 256 colors palette for photos in JPG format, and to my surprise the result was 1-2KB larger than when the palette was left unchanged.

Offline BravoV

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7549
  • Country: 00
  • +++ ATH1
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2019, 05:36:27 am »
Imo, all problems with big sized photos/pictures still depend on the poster's knowledge and care.

Some are totally noob to be aware of that certain photo/picture is only suitable in lossy compression format like JPEG, while some are very good in lossless format like PNG. Google if any you still don't have any idea which is which is the most optimal for each type of photo/picture/illustration.

Of course, some are just ignorance, plain lazy and don't care shit about this.  ::)

Also regarding photo shot from camera (not illustration like schematic), an excuse that only big sized file say like > 1MB is needed to bring the details, personally, I think that is excessive for most of the cases. An example from one of my photo posted here in this forum below, its only 120KB and I believe it has enough details presented to viewers to get my point.

Its about my rotting connector plastic that oozed out nasty flakes that I posted at other thread.  :(

Click to enlarge


Of course, I did post huge file sized photos too, but that was intentional, as it needs all the details as much as possible for viewer to view the traces at 4 layers board with a backlighting. It was photos of PCB shots that I managed to custom adjust the compression level of two JPG files, at original camera's resolution with 1 MB each up to the forum's limit at that time which was 2 MB max in a single post. Example -> HERE
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 05:53:16 am by BravoV »
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20355
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2019, 07:57:39 am »
use Gimp to reduce the image to indexed, with a maximum palette of 256 colours

I tried indexed 256 colors palette for photos in JPG format, and to my surprise the result was 1-2KB larger than when the palette was left unchanged.
What sort of image was it? A photograph by any chance? My comment regarding PNG and indexed colour, only applies to schematics and drawings, with large areas of either the same colour, or a repeating pattern. As mentioned above, PNG is no good for photographs. Use JPEG, smooth the image and use a lower quality setting to save space.
 

Offline T3sl4co1l

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 22436
  • Country: us
  • Expert, Analog Electronics, PCB Layout, EMC
    • Seven Transistor Labs
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2019, 08:41:24 am »
I voted < 500kB because that's a pretty safe maximum.  There are very few cases where you should ever need more size than that in a single image.  Average probably around 100k.

If you can't say it in 800x600 or such*, should you really be saying it at all?  Consider first of all, cropping, brightening and sharpening your image.  Second, if you must show detail, why not crop sections, or take macro shots?  There is so much more information you can present, in so much better ways.

*This was once a common screen resolution, but that's largely of historical significance anymore, even among mobile devices (which have vertical or mixed aspect ratios, oddball numbers, and, some of them have bizarre cutouts in the display?...well, anyway... :-DD ).  Anyway, similar number of pixels, about a half a megapixel, really.


Most people, simply give it no thought whatsoever, have no clue that this is even a thing to argue about -- they have no need or care of the details, they just want to get an image from here to there.

For their benefit, there could perhaps be an added step like, "Would you like your image to be reduced automatically?"  The default option would be "yes", encouraging its use.  Answering "no" might give a second nag, "would you like your image compressed for faster loading?", which would save it at JPG compression 80-90 say, or PNG indexed, whichever is smaller; assuming this isn't a tremendous load on the server of course**; and if declined both times, just let it through absolutely normal.  Possibly add an option "Use these options for all attachments?" for when a user is posting a lot of images and doesn't want the nag every time.  Or put it in the user profile as another option ("attachments: advanced mode" say?).

**It could be done clientside with a JS library, though I'm not sure quite how slow that would go.  Which... oh neat, Canvas.toDataURL takes a type ("image/png" (default) or "image/jpeg" for example), with a second parameter for quality.  So it's probably in most browsers to begin with, no page overhead, and it should be very fast.

But, speaking of laziness, it may well be more effort to introduce such a feature to the forum software, than it is to provide for the server and connections, and if most users aren't complaining about load times or poorly formatted images who cares, right?

Tim
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electronic design, from concept to prototype.
Bringing a project to life?  Send me a message!
 

Offline Berni

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5050
  • Country: si
Re: Images embedded between text - how big is still tolerable for you?
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2019, 09:14:30 am »
I wouldn't mind seeing an optional automatic image compression feature. But i think id only offer the feature for compressing down ridiculously large JPEG photos.

You don't want to convert a schematic in JPG format into a PNG. The PNG will try to encode all of the JPEG artifacts and grow the file size a lot. You can also have transparency in formats like PNG and GIF where automatic conversions sometimes fall on its face.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf