General > General Technical Chat
NEW FORUM UPLOAD FEATURES
<< < (8/32) > >>
bitseeker:
If it was my choice, the ideal solution would be an SMF plugin that enabled inline images to be thumbnailed in the same fashion as image attachments. That way they can be positioned properly within the body of the post, but not incur extra bandwidth until clicked upon. I hunted around for such a thing a few weeks ago, but didn't find one.

I once visited a thread here using my phone and accessing the mobile version of the forum. Although it was fast since I was on LTE, it was over 50MB(!) for one page due to all the inline images. :o
NiHaoMike:

--- Quote from: nctnico on July 03, 2019, 01:29:09 am ---I doubt that will be the case because those people likely have a zoom factor to scale everything up. Otherwise nothing would be readable in any application.

--- End quote ---
On the desktop, 4K monitors are commonly available to 40" or bigger (mine is 50"), so similar dot pitch to 20" class 1080p monitors.
BravoV:

--- Quote from: bitseeker on July 03, 2019, 02:36:19 am ---If it was my choice, the ideal solution would be an SMF plugin that enabled inline images to by thumbnailed in the same fashion as image attachments. That way they can be positioned properly within the body of the post, but not incur extra bandwidth until clicked upon. I hunted around for such a thing a few weeks ago, but didn't find one.
--- End quote ---

If this feature exist, it will be perfect.  :-+
StillTrying:
Even though the number of openings of thumbnails is very low compared with a page's number of views, to show more detail I think thumbnails should be 1600x1200 pixels and limited to just 5 or 6MB each. If the reader really needs to see the full res sized image they can always just click on the 1600x1200 thumbnail. :palm:
Zero999:

--- Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 02, 2019, 09:38:15 pm ---
--- Quote from: Dubbie on July 02, 2019, 06:10:39 pm ---To users with modern 4K screens, 640 or 800 pix images are practically thumbnails. I think things are fine as they are.

--- End quote ---
That would be enough to inform the user if it's worth opening the full resolution image, unlike the current situation where the thumbnails are only useful to give a rough idea what it might be about.
--- End quote ---
Well that's the idea behind thumbnails: to give a rough idea of what the image is.


--- Quote ---Hence the idea of making the thumbnails something like 640x480 or 800x600, maybe even as high as 720p. Then the users with limited bandwidth would only open the full resolution images if they think there's something worth looking at in detail.

At this point, I would say that 1080p would satisfy most users in most situations, and still look quite good under 1MB per image. An exception would be images of large boards that need more detail.

--- End quote ---
As I said before, the forum software saves thumbnails in 32-bit colour PNG, which would waste a huge amount of bandwidth, at that resolution. Unfortunately the software isn't smart enough to do as you suggested in your other post.

This has been discussed before. The thumbnails were originally larger, than they are now, 500x500, but were reduced to 100x100, after it was realised how much bandwidth was being wasted:  300kB PNG thumbnails for 52kB JPEGS!
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/news/forum-picture-efficiency/msg46420/#msg46420
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod