The DnD Sanctuary

Forum-related => Forum Administration => Topic started by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 12:27:55

Title: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 12:27:55
Luxor, you've said 1.2M is too much (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=194.msg13387#msg13387)?? 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???
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Luxor on 2014-03-17, 12:41:07
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.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-03-17, 12:45:14
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.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-03-17, 12:46:32
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.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 12:52:26

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
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 12:56:25
Quote
https://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:
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 13:02:17
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?
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Luxor on 2014-03-17, 13:03:41
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.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 13:10:26
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...
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 13:15:47
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:
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 13:18:17
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?:)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Luxor on 2014-03-17, 13:32:28
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?:)

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/FacePalm.gif)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 14:41:41
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
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Luxor on 2014-03-17, 14:54:44
Oh boy. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/shakeheadno.gif)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 15:07:10
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. ;) 
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-17, 15:08:06
Nice smilies! :up: :)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-03-17, 16:01:28

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.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Luxor on 2014-03-17, 17:43:27
I was using 2 Mbit as an example of a slow connection.

I think we've been here before (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=154.msg8107#msg8107).  :P
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: j7n on 2014-03-17, 19:41:25
ׂ
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-03-17, 21:42:06
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.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: j7n on 2014-03-18, 00:04:43
ׂ
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-18, 04:14:09
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:
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Luxor on 2014-03-18, 12:22:51
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. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Puzzled.gif)
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. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Whistle.gif)

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.  (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Tease.gif)


then taking a dump and going to bed

Too much information. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Stop.gif)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-18, 12:31:18
Lux, I doubt it. (Though pooping is a very major issue in human life to be dropped off, you know.:P)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Luxor on 2014-03-18, 12:45:56
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. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/frantic.gif)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-18, 12:57:09
I adore your smiles store:)

Well, on topic.  I will consider the size of images - even sometimes if it's "on-the-go" (only the way if I notice they're loading). Still I doubt if others bother about any 'hostings' sharing a link in *imgs*.
I used to share much, much heavier images on MyOpera - then got a feedback from some Bro to take some consideration:) They - images - there are of much-much more gargantuan sizes than that tiny 1+ Megabyte: if you like, I'd show you a couple of links, huh?;)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Luxor on 2014-03-18, 14:06:48
Well, on topic.  I will consider the size of images
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Handclap.gif)(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/ThankYou.gif)
I used to share much, much heavier images on MyOpera - then got a feedback from some Bro to take some consideration:)

Consideration for others is a good thing. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Wink2.gif)
They - images - there are of much-much more gargantuan sizes than that tiny 1+ Megabyte: if you like, I'd show you a couple of links, huh?

I remember them, all of space if I recall correctly (or was that someone else?) and yes they were huge. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/omg.gif)
I would suggest Frenzies way of doing things is the best way of showing something like them off.
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.

Just think a whole thread about space images with the option for folks to view the full size images if they so desire. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/BigSmile.gif)
What's not to like about such a thread. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Yes.gif)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-18, 14:29:23
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/ThankYou.gif)
:amused:
:)
...and yes they were huge. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/omg.gif)
They?:lol: They weren't:)
Those REALLY HUGE ones I even didn't attempt to click on. :rip: :)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: ersi on 2014-03-19, 03:58:41

Just think a whole thread about space images with the option for folks to view the full size images if they so desire. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/BigSmile.gif)
What's not to like about such a thread. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Yes.gif)

Once upon a time, Jax opened a thread of cityscapes. Or was it architecture. A thread for big images anyway. How is that for a measure?

I personally don't have any bandwidth/cost limit issues, but I normally browse with images switched off altogether, both as a memory from the times when I had such issues and because I have found that images on the web are not usually worth the hype. This attitude would help with your brain issue too, Luxor, you know the part of your brain that stores visual content...
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: jax on 2014-03-19, 08:37:57
Speaking of data limits, images using data URLs should be discouraged as they are literally embedded in the code and thus counts towards Frenzie's data limit.

So far I've only seen a small bottle of bourbon (because the image was broken), which shouldn't cause any headache, but they are as bad as attachments, with overhead on top.

(Now, I am a data URL hater anyway. If you consider using a data URL, reconsider.)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-03-19, 08:41:38
The forum isn't very friendly toward data URIs. ;)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: jax on 2014-03-19, 09:12:22
I wondered about that. You broke the bottle on purpose...

Once upon a time, Jax opened a thread of cityscapes. Or was it architecture. A thread for big images anyway. How is that for a measure?


This thread (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=92.0). Actually, apart from an interest in architecture, I were also experimenting with image-heavy threads. This is one of two threads I copy-pasted in its entirety, for that very reason.

I have no compunctions with hot-linking (linking directly to an image), as long as it is done within reason. You shouldn't pass the image off as your own (which is plagiarism), you should provide attributions where relevant, and you shouldn't abuse/slashdot the place.

There are distinct disadvantages. Some sites have policies against it or dislike it, others don't mind, but shut down or change their URLs.

For some image sites breaking these rule cause reprisals against the forum. This happened to http://www.skyscrapercity.com/ which now has clear externally induced rules against hot-linking without attribution and images of scantily clad women (both improvements, mind you).
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Macallan on 2014-03-19, 09:14:09

The forum isn't very friendly toward data URIs. ;)

I'd consider that a feature :right:
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-03-19, 13:30:37
Well, wishes...

What about some special threads? 'Architecture' goes to the forest*.
I was wondering, when (or if) myself or anybody is going to set a topic about [visual] arts? They will... O'k - I'd consider that thread for pictures to post (along with comments and opinions), and what should they be?
Of course, when a thread is dedicated, one can consider resizing and/or "special linking" ("[url=*fullsize*][img]*cutsize*[/img][/url]" - like that). Still, if the folks will know (probably) that the thread is dedicated to large images, they might consider not opening it without necessity or from a cellphone, right?
???
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-03-19, 17:57:13
Well, you might want to note the difference between the Wikipedia thumbnail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Three_Graces,_by_Peter_Paul_Rubens,_from_Prado_in_Google_Earth.jpg) (87 kB) and the 195.38 MB full-size image.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-03-20, 06:52:32
@Frenzie

When one posts an image using the width parameter, what is the impact on this 200px wallpaper post below --- the actual original image size .92mb, or a size relative to the image's resized ( 1,920px × 1,200px  ➜  200px x 200px ) value? 

(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmashingtips.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FConflict-HD-Wallpaper.jpg&hash=12c2569dc29e6e2b7f592f0d0a304ade" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smashingtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Conflict-HD-Wallpaper.jpg)
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-03-20, 08:06:36
It only changes the display. Any resizing happens in the browser.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: jax on 2014-03-20, 10:15:29
So you get a huge (relatively speaking) file download for little effect. Worst case, international data roaming, 1 MB (your picture) can cost 10$ to download. In those cases it is telcom legal plunder, a tax on the unwary, but some mobile subscriptions can still be pricey. Of course in those cases the sensible option is to use Opera Mini (or similar offerings), so the massive waste of bytes wouldn't be noticeable to the user.

There were evil stress tests of this kind, where every pixel was a picture, or a table cell. In the early days they crashed a few browsers, or Frenzie's data limit...

Unless these are pictures the user will see anyway, an early caching, this is not a good idea (actually not such a good idea even then, use thumbnails).

Also, pictures gobble up RAM. For most image processing images are handled uncompressed, that is 4 bytes per pixel as a rule. This picture has 2.3 million of them. This should only be the pixels that are actually displayed (or in a buffer for fast transitions, which should double the RAM). Evil tests like above would show inefficient implementations quickly.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: j7n on 2014-03-20, 11:01:46
ׂ
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: jax on 2014-03-20, 11:42:57

The forum isn't very friendly toward data URIs. ;)
And it shouldn't be. But looking a little closer into the manner it seems that Google is. (Hixie is working there, so it is maybe not so surprising.) If you look at the Google-generated thumbnails they often are data URIs.

I wonder if they have lawyered up on that. Cache is exempt from the draconian IP laws of the US, fortunately for browser vendors and users (cache-free browsing is working, but not very well). Google and other search vendors are likewise using the same loophole to do what they are doing. A link is a reference to a resource, http://blah.blah/image.png where image.png is stored on the blah.blah server. A data URI on the other hand is the resource, it is a representation of image.png encoded in gibberish, not a link/reference to image.png. I don't think it would be correct to define it as a cache of a resource either, no sane implementation would cache resources as data URIs (IANAL and all that).

Anyway, that makes a number of Google images off-limit to sharing.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: string on 2014-03-20, 11:47:39

So you get a huge (relatively speaking) file download for little effect. Worst case, international data roaming, 1 MB (your picture) can cost 10$ to download. In those cases it is telcom legal plunder, a tax on the unwary, but some mobile subscriptions can still be pricey. Of course in those cases the sensible option is to use Opera Mini (or similar offerings), so the massive waste of bytes wouldn't be noticeable to the user.
In Europe I hope for better things in the future from the work being done by the EU.  But you are right, those prices can be devastating and are exploitative. I visit Mallorca a lot but since it is for a relatively small portion of the year don't have a permanent subscription because of cost. I use a SIM card with a 3G connection (Hits mobile)where the cost is 3 Euro cents/Mb and that, together with the data compression that Opera allows (and Crome now?), reduces the cost to very manageable proportions. If I was commuting from Spain to the UK, the comparative option would be £0.01/Mb (Three). Even so I tend to keep Windows updates on hold until I have access to my own/family's secure WiFi setup.

Those costs I mention compared with the $11/Mb demonstrate how people are taken for a ride in roaming charges.
Title: Re: Embedding Images
Post by: j7n on 2014-03-20, 13:29:27
ׂ