Huge Screenshots and Images Are Annoying
 

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.

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

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.

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

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

Source: http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_images.asp

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=81920
(#10)

But I see the faq/rules state something different:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq....ure_image_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:

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.

@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

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

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

: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.

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.