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.
Like this?
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.
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.
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.
because the forum software always saves thumbnails with a 32-colour depth,
Increase the thumbnail size to something like 640x480 or 800x600.
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.
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 When they're "big", HD (1280X720), tops.That seems way outdated in today's day and age.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.
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.
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.
use Gimp to reduce the image to indexed, with a maximum palette of 256 colours
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.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.
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.Indeed. And even for those who do care it is just too much work to cut/edit every picture.
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?Hence my suggestion to use a service like Flickr which can serve images in many sizes. Perhaps Dave & Gnif can setup something similar on the EEVblog server.
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?Hence my suggestion to use a service like Flickr which can serve images in many sizes. Perhaps Dave & Gnif can setup something similar on the EEVblog server.
To users with modern 4K screens, 640 or 800 pix images are practically thumbnails. I think things are fine as they are.Well you can easily zoom in, which doesn't cost any extra bandwidth.
To users with modern 4K screens, 640 or 800 pix images are practically thumbnails. I think things are fine as they are.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.
It's not the resolution that's the problem. It is the file size.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.
Do not post 8 MB pictures! Period. :box:
Some of us do not have the luxury of a Gigabyte internet connection.
At 3 Mbps download speed, these 4K pictures take FOREVER to download.
Surely there is a middle ground here.
The only reason to post pictures that big would be a schematic and if it is in a PNG format it will not have artifacts and the lossless compression will reduce the file size.
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.
To users with modern 4K screens, 640 or 800 pix images are practically thumbnails. I think things are fine as they are.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.
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.On the desktop, 4K monitors are commonly available to 40" or bigger (mine is 50"), so similar dot pitch to 20" class 1080p monitors.
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.
Well that's the idea behind thumbnails: to give a rough idea of what the image is.To users with modern 4K screens, 640 or 800 pix images are practically thumbnails. I think things are fine as they are.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.
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.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 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/images-embedded-between-text-how-big-is-still-tolerable-for-you/msg2520732/#msg2520732).
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.
Restrictions: 25 per post, maximum total size 5000KB, maximum individual size 5000KB
Restrictions: 25 per post, maximum total size 250MB, maximum individual size 10MB
I would love to pay some $$ more (even on a year base) to be able to upload here more data.QuoteRestrictions: 25 per post, maximum total size 5000KB, maximum individual size 5000KB
For paying supporters it should be at least:QuoteRestrictions: 25 per post, maximum total size 250MB, maximum individual size 10MB
Slow internet connections users they will have problems not only at the EEVblog.
We are in 2019.
Slow internet connections users they will have problems not only at the EEVblog.
We are in 2019.
Strongly disagree, 10MB jpeg
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 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/images-embedded-between-text-how-big-is-still-tolerable-for-you/msg2520732/#msg2520732).How difficult would it be to have all thumbnails be JPEG, or use JPEG if the source is JPEG and PNG if the source is PNG?
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 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/news/forum-picture-efficiency/msg46420/#msg46420)
The EEVBlog is one if the finest place for EE Hack, we need to be able to pull and store our data (.zip, .7z., ISO images) here.P2P would be better for that, such as Bittorrent or IPFS.
Slow internet connections users they will have problems not only at the EEVblog.
We are in 2019.
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.
If this feature exist, it will be perfect. :-+
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)Most every (probably every) SSD can do random writes well in excess of what a 1 Gbps link can download.
I'm surprised so many don't care about the resolution and MB size.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.
The bandwidth used by still images is tiny compared to the bandwidth used by video.
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.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.
There's no "perhaps" about it.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.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.Certainly true - but from my experience these are very much the exception.
A 1080p/1MB "soft limit" might be an idea, where the user would be asked if they really intended to post something bigger.I get what you're saying - but I fully expect there will be many that will see this as something they can click past, rather than fix.
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.This may be - but it still imposes a burden on others.
I would love to pay some $$ more (even on a year base) to be able to upload here more data.QuoteRestrictions: 25 per post, maximum total size 5000KB, maximum individual size 5000KB
For paying supporters it should be at least:QuoteRestrictions: 25 per post, maximum total size 250MB, maximum individual size 10MB
Slow internet connections users they will have problems not only at the EEVblog.Sorry, but I find this attitude arrogant and bordering on offensive.
We are in 2019.
I get what you're saying - but I fully expect there will be many that will see this as something they can click past, rather than fix.A default option on the dialog to downscale it to 1080p should fix the lazy part. Actually make them uncheck the option if they want to post full resolution.
I get what you're saying - but I fully expect there will be many that will see this as something they can click past, rather than fix.A default option on the dialog to downscale it to 1080p should fix the lazy part. Actually make them uncheck the option if they want to post full resolution.
..........
Its about my rotting connector plastic that oozed out nasty flakes that I posted at other thread. :(
Click to enlarge
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/what-the-hell-is-happening-to-these-ribbon-cable-connectors-bio-degradable/?action=dlattach;attach=33290;image)
Of course, I did post huge file sized photos too, ..........
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.There are probably two sides to this issue: First, as a requester of information, I would probably cut down an image in terms of pixels and color depth just to be able to post it. I need an answer to something that is essentially visual. Second, as a responder, I am not going to spend the time to cut down an image that responds to somebody else's request. Too much effort, no reward.
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.As long as the resulting image displays the intent, I am all in favor of automagic. But if we're looking for that tiny little spike in a scope image, it would be regrettable if the compression eliminated it.
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?).
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?I would see storage space as a bigger issue than download size. My download rate is 300 Mbps and no cap. I simply don't care how large an image is. What I don't want to do is get into a compression game just to upload an image in response to somebody else's question.
Tim
What I don’t like about recommending external hosting is that you then make the long-run hosting subject to the whims and business model changes (or even tech changes) of a third party provider.
I’m on several forums where there’s some old posts with all the images gone.
What I don’t like about recommending external hosting is that you then make the long-run hosting subject to the whims and business model changes (or even tech changes) of a third party provider.I agree that using external images / attachement isn't ideal but this forum simply doesn't offer a viable alternative. If you want to create a posting with several images on EEVblog you have to re-edit your post several times and copy links to the attachements. That is a lot of work (besides the size of the images). Some forums (like Tapatalk) have their own system to handle attachements in a user friendly way.
I’m on several forums where there’s some old posts with all the images gone.
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.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.
I guess it all boils down to the fact that the Internet has become essentially graphic and this forum software--what is it called? SMF?--is still text-oriented when it comes to uploading: as if we were sending email messages. It still treats anything that is not text as if it were a MIME, i.e., an extension, an appendix, an attachment.
This seems a useful way to address the inline images: https://www.smfhacks.com/index.php?topic=9060.0 (https://www.smfhacks.com/index.php?topic=9060.0)
There are now extra options in the attachment box.Does it still have the insistence to save thumbnails as PNG (when the source is JPG) which causes problems with making the thumbnails bigger?
Testing "Inline expandable thumbnail"
(Attachment Link)
Testing inline full size image (Attachment Link)Testing quote of inline full size image. (Also not working.)
There are now extra options in the attachment box.Does it still have the insistence to save thumbnails as PNG (when the source is JPG) which causes problems with making the thumbnails bigger?
Testing "Inline expandable thumbnail"
(Attachment Link)
Also, the image doesn't show when quoted.
Testing inline full-size image
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=196581.0;attach=780366;image)
Seems to work.
Installed
There are now extra options in the attachment box.
Testing "Inline expandable thumbnail"
(Attachment Link)
From a smart tv perspective when viewed at 200% this image was ridiculously huge when clicked and a further mouse click just zoomed in even further. The image went to full screen view automatically and looked good when viewed at 100%. I then needed to hit the back button to return to the post but this could be normal as I haven't had a look from the computer as yet. :-\
There is also this advanced attachment plugin:
https://www.smfpacks.com/au/ (https://www.smfpacks.com/au/)
(Attachment Link)
Sick! Thanks Dave and co!
Tim
(Attachment Link)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=196581.0;attach=780414;image)
Sick! Thanks Dave and co!
Tim
This seems a useful way to address the inline images: https://www.smfhacks.com/index.php?topic=9060.0 (https://www.smfhacks.com/index.php?topic=9060.0)
Installed
There are now extra options in the attachment box.
Testing "Inline expandable thumbnail"
(Attachment Link)
I'm surprised so many don't care about the resolution and MB size.The size can be reduced further by reducing it to a monochrome PNG, which will also makes it easier to read, as it's a line drawing.
This original 3.1MB 5102x6599 image expands to 100MB in memory and makes my FF crawl along.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/help-diagnosing-this-dual-555-timer-circuit-please-(pwm-blinking)/msg2525259/#msg2525259 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/help-diagnosing-this-dual-555-timer-circuit-please-(pwm-blinking)/msg2525259/#msg2525259)
I can get it down to 31kB and 1MB in memory, which is nearly nothing in comparison!
If the thumbnail size on the server is an issue. You could incrementally run a tool like pnggauntlet to compress the colour space. So new uploads have the crazy big ones. But anything older than say a week is reduced.
Nice improvements.
I don't mind the changing of a full size image to a link in the quote. You inevitably get someone quoting a full teardown of 10+ photos and leaving the images in place.
I'm assuming there is a way to edit the code "attach=1" to show it full size when needed though.
Testing inline full size image (Attachment Link)One issue with this, compared to the regular [ img ] tags: They don't scale to page width. Instead, it just turns the whole post (not just the image!) into a left-right scrolling nightmare. This could lead to significant problems with people posting inline images on their 30" displays with the browser maximized, not realizing that they won't scale down as the traditional tag does, meaning that any text they write in the post will require incessant horizontal scrolling to read.
That's super annoying, having thumbnails behave completely differently depending on where they are in a post. :(From a smart tv perspective when viewed at 200% this image was ridiculously huge when clicked and a further mouse click just zoomed in even further. The image went to full screen view automatically and looked good when viewed at 100%. I then needed to hit the back button to return to the post but this could be normal as I haven't had a look from the computer as yet. :-\
Yes, seem you have to hit the back button, it's not a popup.
Installed and testing a CTRL-V image (Nope, didn't work)FYI, there's a substantial "gotcha" with them combined when using multiple attachments: the inline plugin doesn't know about the advanced attachments. So if you use advanced attachments to add multiple attachments (identifiable by the images being uploaded in real-time, adding a thumbnail immediately) instead of clicking the "more attachments" link to add another file chooser), the inline plugin doesn't know this, and sees only the first one.
Testing drag'n'drop: Worked!, draged direct from my Sreenpresso window, NICE! :-+
And doesn't muck up the previously installed inline extras
I FULLY understand when people say that 'Images' or what ever, that are linked 'externally', canYes, but sometimes the user left the forum and the images are forever gone. And I am not talking about the "joke" images or other General Chat section discussions, but I have bumped into several timeless teardowns and other very interesting bits that are gonski forever.
'disappear' over time. However, for the MOST part, such info can be of transient interest at the
time, for visual interest. If someone considers the text/images within a particular Post to be of
such Importance, then like myself, I would have SAVED such info, for later perusal/use. ??
Yes, but sometimes the user left the forum and the images are forever gone. And I am not talking about the "joke" images or other General Chat section discussions, but I have bumped into several timeless teardowns and other very interesting bits that are gonski forever.I fully agree. There have been more than a few examples of images becoming unavailable on external services. It's definitely not a small or theoretical situation.
I had two or three teardowns and interesting posts hosted on Imageshack which I ended up reuploading the images to the EEVBlog. I also warned other users on occasion that their excellent teardowns and posts were lost due to external hosting images - some of them responded positively and did the work at their own personal expense.
Overall, IMO hosting on EEV enriches the forum to an untangible level - we can't predict the future.
Testing inline full size image (Attachment Link)One issue with this, compared to the regular [ img ] tags: They don't scale to page width. Instead, it just turns the whole post (not just the image!) into a left-right scrolling nightmare. This could lead to significant problems with people posting inline images on their 30" displays with the browser maximized, not realizing that they won't scale down as the traditional tag does, meaning that any text they write in the post will require incessant horizontal scrolling to read.
That's super annoying, having thumbnails behave completely differently depending on where they are in a post. :(From a smart tv perspective when viewed at 200% this image was ridiculously huge when clicked and a further mouse click just zoomed in even further. The image went to full screen view automatically and looked good when viewed at 100%. I then needed to hit the back button to return to the post but this could be normal as I haven't had a look from the computer as yet. :-\
Yes, seem you have to hit the back button, it's not a popup.
Installed and testing a CTRL-V image (Nope, didn't work)FYI, there's a substantial "gotcha" with them combined when using multiple attachments: the inline plugin doesn't know about the advanced attachments. So if you use advanced attachments to add multiple attachments (identifiable by the images being uploaded in real-time, adding a thumbnail immediately) instead of clicking the "more attachments" link to add another file chooser), the inline plugin doesn't know this, and sees only the first one.
Testing drag'n'drop: Worked!, draged direct from my Sreenpresso window, NICE! :-+
And doesn't muck up the previously installed inline extras
In the test above, the hare with rifle and Perry the Platypus were uploaded (in that order) using the advanced attachments upload, having selected "inline thumbnail". It only inserts one insert tag (with attachment ID 1), not two. The fox with binoculars was uploaded using "more attachments" to add another file chooser, and it correctly incremented another insert tag (with ID 2).
Expected/desired behavior would have been for the hare to have ID 1, Perry to have ID 2, the fox to have ID 3, with an inline thumbnail of all three. Instead, the fox got ID 1 and an inline thumbnail, Perry got ID 3 but no inline thumbnail, and the hare got ID 2 and an inline thumbnail.
Additionally, the advanced attachments plugin ONLY applies to the first file chooser. Any additional ones added by the "more attachments" link retain strictly the old 1 chooser == 1 file behavior, where selecting another file replaces the previously selected one.
None of this is a deal-breaker (they're still useful plugins), just something to be aware of when doing complex posts with multiple inline attachments. In that case, it's probably best to attach them as traditional attachments and then go back and edit to insert them. But using advanced attachments for multiple "traditional" attachments works great.
Installed and testing a CTRL-V image (Nope, didn't work)FYI, there's a substantial "gotcha" with them combined when using multiple attachments: the inline plugin doesn't know about the advanced attachments. So if you use advanced attachments to add multiple attachments (identifiable by the images being uploaded in real-time, adding a thumbnail immediately) instead of clicking the "more attachments" link to add another file chooser), the inline plugin doesn't know this, and sees only the first one.
Testing drag'n'drop: Worked!, draged direct from my Sreenpresso window, NICE! :-+
And doesn't muck up the previously installed inline extras
In the test above, the hare with rifle and Perry the Platypus were uploaded (in that order) using the advanced attachments upload, having selected "inline thumbnail". It only inserts one insert tag (with attachment ID 1), not two. The fox with binoculars was uploaded using "more attachments" to add another file chooser, and it correctly incremented another insert tag (with ID 2).
Expected/desired behavior would have been for the hare to have ID 1, Perry to have ID 2, the fox to have ID 3, with an inline thumbnail of all three. Instead, the fox got ID 1 and an inline thumbnail, Perry got ID 3 but no inline thumbnail, and the hare got ID 2 and an inline thumbnail.
Additionally, the advanced attachments plugin ONLY applies to the first file chooser. Any additional ones added by the "more attachments" link retain strictly the old 1 chooser == 1 file behavior, where selecting another file replaces the previously selected one.
None of this is a deal-breaker (they're still useful plugins), just something to be aware of when doing complex posts with multiple inline attachments. In that case, it's probably best to attach them as traditional attachments and then go back and edit to insert them. But using advanced attachments for multiple "traditional" attachments works great.
[attachimg=1][attachimg=2][attachimg=3]a img {
max-width: 100%;
}
.bbc_img {
max-width: 100%;
}
.poster {
overflow-wrap: break-word;
overflow: hidden;
}
Yeah, I know. I explained that in my post. I bolded those passages in the quoted copy above, for your reference.Installed and testing a CTRL-V image (Nope, didn't work)FYI, there's a substantial "gotcha" with them combined when using multiple attachments: the inline plugin doesn't know about the advanced attachments. So if you use advanced attachments to add multiple attachments (identifiable by the images being uploaded in real-time, adding a thumbnail immediately) instead of clicking the "more attachments" link to add another file chooser), the inline plugin doesn't know this, and sees only the first one.
Testing drag'n'drop: Worked!, draged direct from my Sreenpresso window, NICE! :-+
And doesn't muck up the previously installed inline extras
In the test above, the hare with rifle and Perry the Platypus were uploaded (in that order) using the advanced attachments upload, having selected "inline thumbnail". It only inserts one insert tag (with attachment ID 1), not two. The fox with binoculars was uploaded using "more attachments" to add another file chooser, and it correctly incremented another insert tag (with ID 2).
Expected/desired behavior would have been for the hare to have ID 1, Perry to have ID 2, the fox to have ID 3, with an inline thumbnail of all three. Instead, the fox got ID 1 and an inline thumbnail, Perry got ID 3 but no inline thumbnail, and the hare got ID 2 and an inline thumbnail.
Additionally, the advanced attachments plugin ONLY applies to the first file chooser. Any additional ones added by the "more attachments" link retain strictly the old 1 chooser == 1 file behavior, where selecting another file replaces the previously selected one.
None of this is a deal-breaker (they're still useful plugins), just something to be aware of when doing complex posts with multiple inline attachments. In that case, it's probably best to attach them as traditional attachments and then go back and edit to insert them. But using advanced attachments for multiple "traditional" attachments works great.
I just posted a message (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/repair/pintek-60mhz-oscilloscope-ps-605-issues/msg2539908/#msg2539908) with multiple inline full size images, using the advanced plugin.
When you upload the first image, it places the referenceCode: [Select]where your cursor is if you press the preview button. However, from the second image on, this doesn't work. What you have to do is to upload all the subsequent images and place[attachimg=1]Code: [Select],[attachimg=2]Code: [Select]and so on manually where you want them inlined.[attachimg=3]
:P I guess it shows that I have worked in the past as a user interface designer, and as an informal tester at a software company that didn't have a QA department (so the support department ended up doing it as best we could)!
And I'm not sure if you picked up on the fact that the IDs the forum software assigns to the images end up being different than the order they're attached, so inlining them as you write the post is not a viable approach, as the images will end up in the wrong places.
It looks like inline thumbnails are intended to expand in place, but it's failling.
Ummm... what? The thumbnails don’t take over the whole page. Are you referring to the full-size image loading as a new page when clicking an inline thumbnail?It looks like inline thumbnails are intended to expand in place, but it's failling.
The inline thumbnails taking over the whole page is more of a nuisance than having to have them at the bottom of the text was!
The inline thumbnails taking over the whole page is more of a nuisance than having to have them at the bottom of the text was!Ummm... what? The thumbnails don’t take over the whole page. Are you referring to the full-size image loading as a new page when clicking an inline thumbnail?
No, it’s not Firefox, it’s the bug I noticed earlier in this thread and which bitseeker just figured out the cause of in his last reply: the in-place image expansion is failing (which is supposed to “catch” the click on the thumbnail — which itself is a link — and expand in place instead of allowing the link to be followed). With the catching failing, the link is being followed and thus loading the image as a new page.The inline thumbnails taking over the whole page is more of a nuisance than having to have them at the bottom of the text was!Ummm... what? The thumbnails don’t take over the whole page. Are you referring to the full-size image loading as a new page when clicking an inline thumbnail?
Yeah, I mean after you've clicked on them to see the full size. :)
I thought the idea was to have the new in-text thumbnails expand within the text, depending on the browser's pixel width, something like InLine.jpg.
If I click on one of the new in-text thumbnails I get NewInLine.jpg, and then have to use the back button to go back to the text.
For me having the expanded image at the bottom/below the thin line was more convenient than the whole new image page version.
Of course it could be something I don't know about firefox.
"the link is being followed and thus loading the image as a new page."
Is it going to be fixed?
The 5 MB per attachment limit might have to be increased to 25 MB so that ppl can post larger images.
(4321.43 kB, 4000x3000) https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/rc-time-constant-205896/msg2632737/#msg2632737 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/rc-time-constant-205896/msg2632737/#msg2632737)
The 5 MB per attachment limit might have to be increased to 25 MB so that ppl can post larger images.
The 5 MB per attachment limit might have to be increased to 25 MB so that ppl can post larger images.
(4321.43 kB, 4000x3000) https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/rc-time-constant-205896/msg2632737/#msg2632737 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/rc-time-constant-205896/msg2632737/#msg2632737)
The 5 MB per attachment limit might have to be increased to 25 MB so that ppl can post larger images.
(4321.43 kB, 4000x3000) https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/rc-time-constant-205896/msg2632737/#msg2632737 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/rc-time-constant-205896/msg2632737/#msg2632737)
:'(
"mine at 371.557 bytes,"
How about 11 kB.
"mine at 371.557 bytes,"
How about 11 kB.
I think a 1MB limit is more than enough. :o
My post just to show to "others" ::) that it can be much smaller, even maintaining at the same resolution.
The problem is that everyone has 12 megapixel cameras on their phones these days.Sure, and insufficient intelligence to set the camera to take low res pics !
Silly.asc (0.56 kB - downloaded 1 times.)
I don't know how that works so well, there's never been any LT on this PC. :)
The problem is that everyone has 12 megapixel cameras on their phones these days.FWIW, iOS 13 finally added the ability to resize images on upload. (And displays the image file size so you know whether resizing is needed.)
What's really needed is smarter upload interface to automatically rescale/compress images or one that gives users the tools to do the rescaling at upload time.
"the link is being followed and thus loading the image as a new page."Evidently not. I am still irritated by the new image features, what with having so many more page loads, giant embeds, ...
Is it going to be fixed?
The problem is that everyone has 12 megapixel cameras on their phones these days.Sure, and insufficient intelligence to set the camera to take low res pics !
Members are just lazy !The problem is that everyone has 12 megapixel cameras on their phones these days.Sure, and insufficient intelligence to set the camera to take low res pics !
No one wants to change their camera setting to take ow res pics, because then you forget to set it back and future photos you really want detail on suck.
The problem is that everyone has 12 megapixel cameras on their phones these days.Sure, and insufficient intelligence to set the camera to take low res pics !
No one wants to change their camera setting to take ow res pics, because then you forget to set it back and future photos you really want detail on suck.
No one wants to change their camera setting to take ow res pics, because then you forget to set it back and future photos you really want detail on suck.
No one wants to change their camera setting to take ow res pics, because then you forget to set it back and future photos you really want detail on suck.
I'm not sure you have noticed the previous posts on this but there are several issues in the theme and since adding that plugin there is a few more.
- clicking on the new embedded image links load a new page
- the new embedded images do not auto width so spill out of the parent element
- the new embedded images max resolution may be set too high or not being obeyed
- user name length is spilling outside its parent element
- high resolution users get a graphical glitch in some of the theme images
No one wants to change their camera setting to take ow res pics, because then you forget to set it back and future photos you really want detail on suck.
I'm not sure you have noticed the previous posts on this but there are several issues in the theme and since adding that plugin there is a few more.
- clicking on the new embedded image links load a new page
- the new embedded images do not auto width so spill out of the parent element
- the new embedded images max resolution may be set too high or not being obeyed
- user name length is spilling outside its parent element
- high resolution users get a graphical glitch in some of the theme images
Ok, what can I do?
Three options:
1) Remove the plugin
2) Pay someone to fix the plugin
3) Ask the developers to fix it in the next update
Do you have a link to the Mod you installed? Likely a tweak to the CSS would resolve some of the issues Shock raised?
Just throwing this Auto/Manual resize mod here for you to take a look at too. It has been around for a fair number of years and the developer of it has kept it up to date with newer versions. https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=4087
Just throwing this Auto/Manual resize mod here for you to take a look at too. It has been around for a fair number of years and the developer of it has kept it up to date with newer versions. https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=4087 (https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=4087)
Doesn't work, errors on install.
Ok, what can I do?
Three options:
1) Remove the plugin
2) Pay someone to fix the plugin
3) Ask the developers to fix it in the next update
No one wants to change their camera setting to take ow res pics, because then you forget to set it back and future photos you really want detail on suck.
I'm not sure you have noticed the previous posts on this but there are several issues in the theme and since adding that plugin there is a few more.
- clicking on the new embedded image links load a new page
- the new embedded images do not auto width so spill out of the parent element
- the new embedded images max resolution may be set too high or not being obeyed
- user name length is spilling outside its parent element
- high resolution users get a graphical glitch in some of the theme images
Ok, what can I do?
Three options:
1) Remove the plugin
2) Pay someone to fix the plugin
3) Ask the developers to fix it in the next update
Although broken in aspect ratio, at least it loads quickly.Was that really necessary, dude? You could have proved that point without being obnoxious (a 262,000 pixel wide image isn't necessary to demonstrate the problem). You do realize that touchscreens don’t have page up/down/home/end keys, meaning tons of manual scrolling just so you can feel smart about knowing that images can compress... :-- :--
As a general note phones seem to suck at jpeg compression. Just re-saving the file on a PC makes it much smaller.Well, the camera apps are no doubt tweaked to err on the side of maintaining image quality over size. I also suspect that many phones use hardware compression to save power, but this of course is often less space efficient and can't be updated.
Intentionally boasted file size, just for the deception that the phone has better image quality. Common trick used by phone manufacturers.:-DD
Intentionally boasted file size, just for the deception that the phone has better image quality. Common trick used by phone manufacturers.:-DD
I think valid, reproducible testing would be required before making such absurd claims.
Hm, OK.I also suspect that many phones use hardware compression to save power, but this of course is often less space efficient and can't be updated.
JPEG is a feed forward algorithm. There's no speed factor in quality-size trade off unless you use skimp on word length (use 16 bit arithmetic rather than 32 bit, etc.).
Therefore, unlike iterative algorithms like MPEG4, there should not be any quality difference between a hardware encoder and a software encoder.
Ignoring a forum mod/admin is a great way to get yourself banned, whether by announcing it like you did here, or by doing it silently and then not seeing a moderator's instructions to you in a reply you've hidden.i agree but then Blueskull is notorious for living in an alternative reality.
Look, a new user in my ignore list.
Ignoring a forum mod/admin is a great way to get yourself banned, whether by announcing it like you did here, or by doing it silently and then not seeing a moderator's instructions to you in a reply you've hidden.
Mentally.
Ignoring a forum mod/admin is a great way to get yourself banned, whether by announcing it like you did here, or by doing it silently and then not seeing a moderator's instructions to you in a reply you've hidden.
i agree but then Blueskull is notorious for living in an alternative reality.
Look, a new user in my ignore list.