| General > General Technical Chat |
| NEW FORUM UPLOAD FEATURES |
| << < (11/32) > >> |
| bitseeker:
--- Quote from: BravoV on July 03, 2019, 04:07:59 am --- --- 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. :-+ --- End quote --- This mod might be it. At least it sounds like it enables you to relocate the bottom-of-post attachments to inline positions preserving the thumbnailing functionality. This would also eliminate the duplicate thumbnails at the end of the post when they already appear inline. Does anyone have an SMF 2.x environment set up where they could try it out? https://www.smfhacks.com/index.php?topic=9060.0 |
| sokoloff:
--- Quote from: RoGeorge on July 03, 2019, 10:47:00 am ---My $10/month unlimited traffic 1Gbps fiber optic can download a DVD faster than a SSD can store it (800Mbs sustained download and 200Mbps sustained upload is very common here, Romania is one of the best in the world for its high speed internet at affordable prices) --- End quote --- Most every (probably every) SSD can do random writes well in excess of what a 1 Gbps link can download. A 1 Gbps link will typically download around 100 MBps. One Byte (big B) is about 10 bits (little B) on the wire. An SSD can typically store 200+MBps. |
| NiHaoMike:
--- Quote from: StillTrying on July 06, 2019, 06:19:33 pm ---I'm surprised so many don't care about the resolution and MB size. --- End quote --- The bandwidth used by still images is tiny compared to the bandwidth used by video. And even what would be considered an old PC by today's standards (e.g. a Lenovo T410) can handle pretty big images just fine. |
| StillTrying:
--- Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 06, 2019, 11:29:48 pm ---The bandwidth used by still images is tiny compared to the bandwidth used by video. --- End quote --- Don't you think a single simple line drawing opening to a 5102x6599 image and using 100MB of browser memory is a bit excessive for one image in a mostly text forum, it only works well because most of us resize. |
| NiHaoMike:
--- Quote from: StillTrying on July 07, 2019, 12:20:02 am ---Don't you think a single simple line drawing opening to a 5102x6599 image and using 100MB of browser memory is a bit excessive for one image in a mostly text forum, it only works well because most of us resize. --- End quote --- Perhaps, but in some other cases like a detailed image of a large PCB, there really would be a good reason to have that level of detail. A 1080p/1MB "soft limit" might be an idea, where the user would be asked if they really intended to post something bigger. I wonder if a large percentage of those who post pictures well above 1080p without intending to do so were posting from a smartphone or tablet. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |