Huge Screenshots and Images Are Annoying

[Subnuts]

Over the past few months I've noticed an upswing in the number of large, 1.5 megabyte or larger screen-shots being posted to the forum in their original size. I generally try to post an image as a thumbnail if it's more than 600 pixels wide or if it's file-size is more than 150 kb.

Although I have a fairly fast internet connection, there are plenty of people out there that don't, and either way, these 1600-pixel wide, 2-megabyte PNG files that keep springing up are pretty darned obnoxious. Would anyone really be upset if an upper limit was placed on the maximum size of non-thumbnailed images? It's something that's really started to grate on my nerves, and I know I'm not the only one.

[krashkart]

Wouldn't bother me any. Massive PNG's are a little over the top, and not everyone knows the benefits of formats like JPG. Another forum I frequent uses an automatic thumbnailer whatchamahoozit that opens the full image in a new window or tab. Example:

The Orbiter-Forum screenshots thread. Efficient use of space. :up:

http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20

[Sailor Steve]

The service I use (PhotoBucket) automatically sizes them to fit the page and converts them to jpeg. I've asked one particular offender not to use pngs, and he replied that they look better that way and continues to do it. I was told by someone else that since the pictures are hosted elsewhere they don't affect Neal's bandwidth and costs, but I'm not sure about that.

But they are still annoying.

[Jimbuna]

I agree....tis no big deal to convert to jpeg format and it helps guard against forum slowdowns for those with low bandwidth connections.

[aergistal]

I was told by someone else that since the pictures are hosted elsewhere they don't affect Neal's bandwidth and costs, but I'm not sure about that.

Yes, I told you that and I know what I'm talking about. Here's further reference:

Note: When a web page is loaded, it is the browser, at that moment, that actually gets the image from a web server and inserts it into the pageSource: http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_images.asp

Image inline linking can also be used for Hotlinking, or bandwidth theft.


<img src="http://notmysite.com/image.jpg" height="350" width="200">

This tag tells the site to request the image.jpg from a different server other than your own. Every time the page is loaded, the outside server has to use its bandwidth to display the image. To avoid this problem, don't link to files on servers that don't belong to you. To share images and files on your own web page, upload them to your own server's directory or to a free image hosting (http://imageshack.us/) service that allows direct linking.Source: http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html


PNG is a lossless format while JPEG uses lossy compression. That is a JPG file may contain visual artifacts based on the level of compression. The greater the compression, the smaller the file but with data loss. However you can have 10:1 compression with little perceptible data loss.

Conclusion
Given the scope of uploading game screenshots to a forum and not for high quality printing JPG should be more than enough for you and it helps more people to see your image.

[Arclight]

I agree, an effort should be made to keep the file-sizes minimal (.jpg does this fine), and limit resolution to 1024x768 so people don't have to scroll to see all of it.

Just a bit of common courtesy really.

[CCIP]

Yeah, I agree - all the hosting services these days offer to automatically resize pictures anyway for those feeling lazy. I'd personally agree with a recommendation to keep it under 1024 in either dimension - the rest should absolutely be in links.

[Jimbuna]

I agree, an effort should be made to keep the file-sizes minimal (.jpg does this fine), and limit resolution to 1024x768 so people don't have to scroll to see all of it.

Just a bit of common courtesy really.

What's your view on the dimensions of the sigs? :hmmm:

[Arclight]

Roughly what Neal set forth in the guidelines. Stuck to that for the image, but kinda exceeded it by pasting some text above and below it. :oops:

Actually, i was going by this post:
A friendly reminder, please keep your signature images to a reasonable size, say 150 high, 500 wide. thanks

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB_archive1/viewtopic.php?t=48024&highlight=signature+image+size+limit
+image+size+limit (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=48024&highlight=signature+image+size+limit)
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=81920
(#10)

But I see the faq/rules state something different:

A friendly reminder, please keep your signature images to a reasonable size, no larger than 120 high, 400 wide. Max file size is 100KB. Sigs that are political or religous in nature may only be displayed in General Topics. Only naval-oriented sigs are allowed in the naval and game forums. Read More: Personal Avatar, Signature, Image FAQs (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=81920)
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=how_stuff_works_faq#faq_signature_imag e_faqs

Aparently I'm in breach of the rules. Maybe Neal can chip in, restating his policy on this. 2 contradicting sources are a bit confusing. :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Those two - 120x400 and 150x500 - are pretty close. For me the big annoyance is the sigs that span the whole page and seem to be almost the size of some screenshots that are posted.

Okay, I exaggerate a little. Okay, I exaggerate a lot, but you know the ones I mean.

My computer really drags when I'm scrolling throught the animated GIFs as well.

[Jimbuna]

@Arclight

If I were you I'd probably go by what Neal suggests (allowing a little latitude as opposed to the official guidance) i do agree with Steve though....you do come across the odd woppa :DL

[HunterICX]

Isn't there a way like on some websites that the picture adjust to ones resolution so it fits on the screen? and if they click it scales to it's original size.

HunterICX

[Lord_magerius]

Wouldn't bother me any. Massive PNG's are a little over the top, and not everyone knows the benefits of formats like JPG. Another forum I frequent uses an automatic thumbnailer whatchamahoozit that opens the full image in a new window or tab. Example:

The Orbiter-Forum screenshots thread. Efficient use of space. :up:

http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=20

I see what you did there... :03:

[JScones]

The service I use (PhotoBucket) automatically sizes them to fit the page and converts them to jpeg. I've asked one particular offender not to use pngs, and he replied that they look better that way and continues to do it. I was told by someone else that since the pictures are hosted elsewhere they don't affect Neal's bandwidth and costs, but I'm not sure about that.

But they are still annoying.
:woot::up::yeah:I agree :up::woot::rock::salute:

I don't care where they are stored, they still count towards my d/l quota, and frankly I have way more important things to waste my d/l limit on than the same 1-2mb shadowed deck gun images all the time.

[danlisa]

The service I use (PhotoBucket) automatically sizes them to fit the page and converts them to jpeg. I've asked one particular offender not to use pngs, and he replied that they look better that way and continues to do it. I was told by someone else that since the pictures are hosted elsewhere they don't affect Neal's bandwidth and costs, but I'm not sure about that.

But they are still annoying.

You've been speaking to a couple of idiots then.

Firstly, to the human eye a 1920x1080 PNG and a JPEG (of similair dimensions) at 70% compression will look no different. The difference is that the PNG will be about 3mb where as the JPEG will be about 500kb (dependent on image content).

Secondly, even if the image is hosted elsewhere it is still data traffic through Neals server and monthly bandwidth usage charge. It costs him.

How do you combat this?

Options:
1) As Hunter said, there are scripts which will automatically resize any oversized image within the forum. However, you can still view the full res version by opening it in a new page. This will not save bandwidth costs as the downsized image is still it's full file size, just smaller dimensions.

2) If people want to post humungous images (dimension and file size) then that should be a subscription benefit. Make the ****ers pay for wasting Neals (and your) bandwidth. The forum should be limited to a max of 1024 x 768 (without special permission), which is the desktop standard.

3) (my personal favourite) Get someone anal enough to check file sizes/dimensions in posts and give them the power to resize them or delete them. We used to have someone like this.......Gizmo.

[Arclight]

Ehr, about JPG vs PNG: You can spot the difference between 100% quality JPG and a PNG image. JPG has less vibrant colors. I certainly notice a decline in quality when converting them, at least.

[Raptor1]

If the images are hosted elsewhere, I'm quite certain it doesn't take Neal any bandwidth. After all, it's just a link to an image hosted elsewhere...

Anyway, I disagree with limiting the size of pictures. I think a better solution would be to ask people to post smaller pictures (Unless where it's appropriate, like screenshot threads) and give warnings/infractions to people who refuse to listen.

Ehr, about JPG vs PNG: You can spot the difference between 100% quality JPG and a PNG image. JPG has less vibrant colors. I certainly notice a decline in quality when converting them, at least.

I agree.

[danlisa]

Ehr, about JPG vs PNG: You can spot the difference between 100% quality JPG and a PNG image. JPG has less vibrant colors. I certainly notice a decline in quality when converting them, at least.

So as not to make this thread self fulfilling........I've resized these down from 1080p @ 6.5mb:

PNG:
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s64/danlisa_photo/Bahamascopy2.png

JPG:
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s64/danlisa_photo/Bahamas2.jpg

I can't see any difference between the 2, except maybe a slight reduction in the shadows on the JPEG but big whoop, we're talking about game screen shots not nature. The JPEG is even compressed to 70% and I see no artifacts either. Even after my work the PNG is about 6 times larger file.

[Arclight]

Didn't say it was a big difference or that it even matters. But you just confirmed what I said:

Firstly, to the human eye a 1920x1080 PNG and a JPEG (of similair dimensions) at 70% compression will look no different.
I can't see any difference between the 2, except maybe a slight reduction in the shadows on the JPEG
Alright, it's a "maybe", but I'll take what I can get at this point. :DL

[danlisa]

Alright, it's a "maybe", but I'll take what I can get at this point. :DL

:haha: Fair enough. I could have added the 6.5mb original but I thought it would be taking the pi$$ a little.:)

Point being though, the argument that full resolution PNG files at anywhere from 3 to 6mb are much better looking than equivalently sized JPEGs, is too daft especially when it's game screen captures that don't require that level of detail.

It's just ignorant towards limited bandwidth users.

[Arclight]

Agreed, JPG should be the format of choice for posting online. :yep:

If someone wishes the original for use as desktop wallpaper or something, it can always be hosted on a filesharing site and the link posted or PM'd.

Some people already do this; iirc Gunfighter for example posts a web-friendly version and provides a link to the full-size, full-quality original.

[Sailor Steve]

:haha: Fair enough. I could have added the 6.5mb original but I thought it would be taking the pi$$ a little.:)

Point being though, the argument that full resolution PNG files at anywhere from 3 to 6mb are much better looking than equivalently sized JPEGs, is too daft especially when it's game screen captures that don't require that level of detail.

It's just ignorant towards limited bandwidth users.
And even if the difference was very obvious, it's still somebody else's time and space. It's selfish and rude to put up a picture that takes more than a minute to load.

[Fincuan]

It's selfish and rude to put up a picture that takes more than a minute to load.

Mmmkkaayyy... with 10 Mbit/s connection that would be theoretically:
10 Mbit/s * 60 s = 600 Mbit = 75 MB

That's one large pic I tell you :D

[danlisa]

Is Steve on a 10mb connection?
Perhaps he's on the Library connection with a limit per PC.
Perhaps he's on a dial up dongle.

Who knows.

People should be more considerate posting pictures. Just because they're on FIOS doesn't mean the next person is not on 54kbs.

[Fincuan]

Exactly my point.

Talking about loading times is useless because connection speeds vary so much. I don't know the next guy's connection speeds so I use my own as reference and whoopa, insanely large pics are completely "legitimate". A fixed size in KB would be by far the best choice, say 200 KB. Using .jpegs the quality still remains ok and the loading time is bearable even with slower connections.

Fyi that 10Mbit/s is the slowest and cheapest option my ISP offers and completely normal up here.

[Dowly]

Fyi that 10Mbit/s is the slowest and cheapest option my ISP offers and completely normal up here.

No, it's normal down there, we still have 2Mbit/s connections available here, think someone's offering 1Mbit/s too. :yep:

As for the topic at hand, I echo what has been already said, JPG's with maximum resolution of 1024x768, over that and make a thumbnail. I personally tend to resize my screenshots from 1280x1024 to 960x768, no need to go any higher than that except if there's something very very very tiny in it that you want people to see.

[Jimbuna]

And even if the difference was very obvious, it's still somebody else's time and space. It's selfish and rude to put up a picture that takes more than a minute to load.

Is Steve on a 10mb connection?
Perhaps he's on the Library connection with a limit per PC.
Perhaps he's on a dial up dongle.

Who knows.

People should be more considerate posting pictures. Just because they're on FIOS doesn't mean the next person is not on 54kbs.

I agree, JPEG format should be the accepted format combined with an agreed maximum size.

[Sailor Steve]

Mmmkkaayyy... with 10 Mbit/s connection that would be theoretically:
10 Mbit/s * 60 s = 600 Mbit = 75 MB
I just checked. It's currently running at 11 Mbps. I do know for a fact that it's taking that long to load, so I don't even see a lot of them.

That's one large pic I tell you :D
I did a Properties check on one of them.

Dimensions: 1344 x 840 pixels
Size: 1786972 bytes. Is that not 1.7 Gigabytes?

[Jimbuna]

1,786,972 .......... bytes
1,745.08984375 . kilobytes
1.7041893005 megabytes
0.0016642473 gigabytes
0.0000016252 terabytes
0.0000000015 petabytes

( Rounded to the nearest 10 decimal places )

[Sailor Steve]

1,786,972 .......... bytes
1,745.08984375 . kilobytes
1.7041893005 megabytes
0.0016642473 gigabytes
0.0000016252 terabytes
0.0000000015 petabytes

( Rounded to the nearest 10 decimal places )
Oh, yeah, I forgot the kilobytes part. Makes a lot more sense that way. But still pretty big.

[Fincuan]

Jimbuna already gave the answer, but I'll just add one bit which helps with bits and bytes:

Google is easily the most convenient "converter" out there. At least in Opera it works straight from the address bar, so you just type for example "600 megabits to megabytes" or "600 Mb to MB" and voila, it gives you the answer. Works on practically every other conversion too, you just have to be careful to give the correct units.

[Jimbuna]

Oh, yeah, I forgot the kilobytes part. Makes a lot more sense that way. But still pretty big.


Yep :yep: