Skip to main content

Topic: Embedding Images (Read 3313 times)

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Embedding Images
Luxor, you've said 1.2M is too much?? Why!?
I don't think it bothers anybody at all!:zzz:

For one, I'd even like to show much heavier pictures - providing they're NOT HOSTED here. I won't: I've already had some feedback about it etc. And again, I'm not CHOOSING heavy images to UPLOAD or whatever -- I use those random from search results - so that won't seem to overload anything being sporadic. If - or when - we have a topic dedicated to pictures entirely -- then the administration could ask us to restrict our sizes so that the page will load within a foreseeable period of time or something. But I don't think 1.2 is too much for a stray pic.

What do you think, guys? Somebody had a problem loading that page???

  • Luxor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #1
Josh the image you posted is 1.2 MB.
Posting rule 13. Avoid large files in posts; this is to conserve forum storage.

I resized and supplied the image for you to use,  which is a mere 62 kb which is more than acceptable for a picture of some balloons.
Have some thought for people on slow connections too, who don't wish to wait for a large image to display.


Edit: And now changing the image to one that is 4.2 MB in size is not doing you any favours.
The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #2
On a 2 Megabit connection, that'll take about 7-8 seconds to load. As a rule of thumb, I'd stick with a maximum of about 200-300 kB with a link to a larger picture if desired. Usually a thumbnail of approximately 100 kB or less should do just fine.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #3
Posting rule 13. Avoid large files in posts; this is to conserve forum storage.

Well, Josh is correct that as phrased it's really about using the attachments feature. In this case it's more about general usability.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #4

I've changed the image.

Look, when somebody embeds a stray image, they have no idea about its size, see? Neither before nor after -- nobody (as long as they ain't seeing any problems) will check it afterwards opening in another tab or whatever. I just mean that the administration can't check all images then contact the poster, right? Relax.

Posting rule 13. Avoid large files in posts; this is to conserve forum storage.
How can "the storage" possibly suffer just bearing a link!!?

Have some thought for people on slow connections too, who don't wish to wait for a large image to display.


I've already asked such people (if there are any). Second, such people are not obliged - but usually do disable images as default.



Edit: And now changing the image to one that is 4.2 MB in size is not doing you any favours.
I had no idea about that either!:D

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #5
Quote
http://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=194.msg13387#msg13387
I've changed that again.
Remember - I use search results just for an 'on-the-go' conversation -- I ain't going to turn the posting into a doctorate application anyway!:faint:

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #6
And note that MOST people wherever use cache one way or another - most (perhaps all) browsers use cache, etc. (phones are an exception, right). So (remember that such images are averagely a couple per page or something), once you've got such a page, next time you get there (same session at least) all the images ARE already there - no load, no nothing, ok?

  • Luxor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #7
On a 2 Megabit connection, that'll take about 7-8 seconds to load.


I was thinking more about the unlucky folk who are still stuck with dial-up or a very slow connection.
I stand by my comment that I made to Josh via pm 1.2 MB is far too large just for a picture of some balloons. I also supplied him with a much more reasonable sized image to use.
Look, when somebody embeds a stray image, they have no idea about its size, see?


That's why most of us save our images, resize them and then use an image host. You shouldn't really hotlink images, some sites tend to get upset about that.
The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #8
As for using the site via simple phone at all,
1) NOBODY SO FAR YET has been GLIMPSED with such using -- EXCEPT MYSELF - testing the idea --- heed the message icons;
2) testing that, I couldn't help but noticed that that gateway, interface and all had never seem to have undergo any attention. As to make that usable/appropriate/whatever. When and if Frans or whoever is going to think about that, nobody knows. The way ITSELF is not at all comfortable to seriously consider any wide usage there...

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #9
I was thinking more about the unlucky folk who are still stuck with dial-up or a very slow connection.
Awaiting their feedback... :wait:
:wait: ...  
I stand by my comment that I made to Josh via pm 1.2 MB is far too large just for a picture of some balloons. I also supplied him with a much more reasonable sized image to use.
Look, it could work: one idiot once in ALL TIME showed such an image - you PMed him - voila. See my point (about which this thread actually is!)?

That's why most of us save our images, resize them and then use an image host.
Sounds crazy.
:rolleyes:

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #10
You shouldn't really hotlink images, some sites tend to get upset about that.
I don't use them sites, actually...
When Google, Yahoo! and other such guys are o'k with hotlinking them for my - whatever - then why shouldn't I be?:)

  • Luxor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #11
The way ITSELF is not at all comfortable to seriously consider any wide usage there...

I don't have a phone personally so maybe I'm not the right one to comment. But I wouldn't have thought they would be very good for wide usage on any web site let alone The D'n'D Sanctuary. OK for a quick look at a site I can understand but for prolonged use?

You shouldn't really hotlink images, some sites tend to get upset about that.
I don't use them sites, actually...
When Google, Yahoo! and other such guys are o'k with hotlinking them for my - whatever - then why shouldn't I be?:)

The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #12
I don't have a phone personally so maybe I'm not the right one to comment.
I do - and that am I alone only who seem to have checked that way at all.
I report: IF you're going to embark youself on the barge of such restricting sizes (let alone personal messaging to everyone, ok?), you will HAVE to actually delete just almost EVERYTHING on site - that which moves and that which doesn't. The cache in a cheap phone is usually much less than a hundred kilo, you'd better start right now checking ALL the threads on site - and remember -- there are YOUTUBE VIDEOS here... Errm.. I think that's enough to close the question forever, don't you think?:D

  • Luxor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #13
Oh boy.
The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #14
If the "boy" is a vocative, you'd better should rather...:)
I mean it'd be an address - so was due to get separated by a comma - letting alone that "oh" is ALREADY a word to get separated!:)
However, I'm not sure if there are "colloquial elisions" of sorts. ;) 

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #15
Nice smilies! :up: :)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #16

On a 2 Megabit connection, that'll take about 7-8 seconds to load.


I was thinking more about the unlucky folk who are still stuck with dial-up or a very slow connection.

I was using 2 Mbit as an example of a slow connection. Eight seconds is an awful long time compared to the fifth of a second it takes on my connection. Double it to 16 seconds for 1 Mbit. On dial-up it'd probably take a minute or so.

  • Luxor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #17
I was using 2 Mbit as an example of a slow connection.

I think we've been here before:P
The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

  • j7n
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #18
ׂ
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-24, 04:27:55 by j7n

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #19
Not really. I used to have real* 100 Mbit a few years back. That doesn't change the fact that 2 Mbit is a slow connection in 2014.

* I.e. up and down. Also unlimited download and upload limited to... I think it was 75GB/week.

  • j7n
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #20
ׂ
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-24, 04:27:44 by j7n

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #21
I'll remember what you think.
Still, I'm not gonna engage the task of applying to the Saints' Order doing checking everything, then dowloading, resizing, searching for a file/photo hoster, registering there (couple'hours reading the TOS), creating a folder/album, uploading the resized shit which I've already lost interest in, checking if it will hotlink, then taking a dump and going to bed - because I've been sitting at the computer for 32 hours already, etc.
But I will remember your wish in case I notice the size... :zzz:

  • Luxor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #22
Still, I'm not gonna engage the task of applying to the Saints' Order doing checking everything, then dowloading, resizing, searching for a file/photo hoster, registering there (couple'hours reading the TOS), creating a folder/album,

Most everyone else can seem to do it, without all the drama.
I can recommend Dropbox it is more than adequate for image hosting, no need to read TOS every time you upload an image. Heck I didn't even read it once.

uploading the resized shit which I've already lost interest in,

If you lose interest in it that quickly it probably wasn't worth posting it in the first place then. 


then taking a dump and going to bed

Too much information.
The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #23
Lux, I doubt it. (Though pooping is a very major issue in human life to be dropped off, you know.:P)

  • Luxor
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: Embedding Images
Reply #24
Lux, I doubt it.

Easy for you to say, you're not the one with that image now implanted in the part of the brain that stores visual images.
I have enough scary things in there as it is without that kind of addition.
The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.