Only 800x600 picture uploads :-(

[Sanford]

I noticed a few days ago that now the maximum size of a picture attachment (upload) is only 800x600. Was this because of storage or bandwidth? (I'm guessing bandwidth)

With modern screens today, viewing an 800x600 picture on a 1600x1200 LCD display leaves a very tiny picture. If I may be so bold to suggest, please increase this limitation to 1280x1024 (400K). Even 1024x768 is small but I'll take that if 1280 can't fly.

FYI: If you are trying to lower upload bandwidth, restricting it to 800x600 will help but if a user uploads a 1600x1200 file...the server is still getting hit with the added bandwidth during upload (until server/imagemagick resizes it).

 

[SuperJETT]

It's based on http://www.x-h2o.com/psistats.php?do=display

62% of all visitors are 1024x768 or less.
71% of all visitors are 1280x800 or less.
800 max dimension works very well for those sizes without a ton of scrolling.

Myself, I'm 1024x768 on my work laptop but 1280x1024 with it docked, 1280x800 on the ubuntu laptop, and anywhere from 800x600 to 1280x1024 on my servers at work.

Also, not all browsers have auto-resize, so I have to accomodate the majority. Heck, 1/2 of all visitors are 1024x768 so 800 max just fits.

Good suggestion though. That's one reason I reinstalled the psistats.

 

[SuperJETT]

Oh, and it's storage, not because we're at a limit, just the sheer volume of attachments we have is crazy and longterm I'd like to keep it manageable. We're already over 2Gb and downloading a backup takes a while, even with me on 10mb.

 

[Sanford]

Oh, and it's storage

Then in that case why not cap the limit to 400K or 500K file size (instead of 3,000K now). Speaking of 3MB picture...its impossible to create a 800x600 JPG that is 3MB (current limit). Windows (xp power toys) can resize one of my 8MB JPG's to 1200x1000 that is under 150K.

There are so many times that someone will post a picture for a tech article or to sell a part and having the ability to view large pictures can really show the details.

ps. Thats a nice looking new quote plug-in.

 

[SuperJETT]

Then in that case why not cap the limit to 400K or 500K file size (instead of 3,000K now). Speaking of 3MB picture...its impossible to create a 800x600 JPG that is 3MB (current limit). Windows (xp power toys) can resize one of my 8MB JPG's to 1200x1000 that is under 150K.

There are so many times that someone will post a picture for a tech article or to sell a part and having the ability to view large pictures can really show the details.

ps. Thats a nice looking new quote plug-in.

The filesize limit is just on the upload portion, the server resizes if they are over 800x800 and the files end up around 100-200kb. If I had it limited to 100Kb, then you wouldn't be able to upload large pics at all.

You have to think about this from the pov of someone that just knows how to transfer their pics to a computer and upload them. They may not have a clue about how to resize. You have to account for the lowest common denominator so you don't exclude them.

I have the gallery set to resize to 1600max and the intermediate pics are 800max.

 

[SuperJETT]

testing

693.4Kb original
2304x1728

76.2Kb after resizing
800x600

That's a 9:1 reduction in filesize.

And on this laptop in 1280x800, it's a perfect fit in Firefox with small toolbars. In IE with normal toolbars, it would have to resize or scroll.

 

[the only couch rider]

testies testies 1 2

 

[SuperJETT]

Also, we have (based on the past 2 weeks) over 400 attachments/week, and that's not counting the gallery uploads.

 

[michael950]

Darin, it also does not show how users browse.

I run Firefox and always have my favorites open on the left, so normally I may not have to scroll but keep the favs open and I have to scroll (sometimes).