With newer and newer & more high tech addons and better graphics, im finding that im having to compress my images so much to fit the 150kb limit....i believe that there should be a 50kb increase in limit

200kb isnt that much bigger but it would allow for crisper images....anyways, thats my only suggestion  :)

I can only imagine that over time the same thing will continue to happen... '250kb is only 50kb more' etc, etc. But yeah, I do agree, I think it would be nice to have a bit more space for images. It's worthwhile sticking with the times and I can't see it creating a huge disruption as internet speeds are quite fast for the majority of people and it's getting cheaper to own.

If I may interject my thoughts. Even though I don't post many images I still remember the days when I had basic dialup and bandwidth limits. Imagine trying to check the  recent replys, when you have to sit and wait for images to load that you've already seen. I wouldn't have bothered back then, even now bandwidth limits could be a reason video forum doesn't get a huge amount of replies.
I'll be quiet for a while now.  :)

My regular moan, having a 17" LCD Computer Monitor with a maximum resolution of 1280 X 1024 X 32, is having to scroll the browser sideways to view it in its entirety, any screen shot and its accompanying text which is <1024 (max) Pixels wide!
I have to limit my shots to 900 Pixels wide to avoid this. (Its a restriction caused by the Forum Browser's available width for Pictures)
For that reason I rarely browse the Screen Shot Forums.

I would rather see a well constructed Screen shot; 800 X 600 X 32... ;)....!

Paul.... ;)....!

Fozzer wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 5:02am:

My regular moan, having a 17" LCD Computer Monitor with a maximum resolution of 1280 X 1024 X 32, is having to scroll the browser sideways to view it in its entirety, any screen shot and its accompanying text which is <1024 (max) Pixels wide! I have to limit my shots to 900 Pixels wide to avoid this. (Its a restriction caused by the Forum Browser's available width for Pictures) For that reason I rarely browse the Screen Shot Forums.

1280 X 1024 is the native resolution for most 17 - 19" LCD monitors with the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio. If you're still using Firefox try the zoom feature. View > Zoom > Zoom Out. (Ctrl + -)

Also, if you click on a 1024 width image you can see it full sceen. This feature was introduced on the recent YaBB update. It won't help with the text.


Quote:

I would rather see a well constructed Screen shot; 800 X 600 X 32... ;)....! Paul.... ;)....!

You can't please everyone. An image that fills your screen would look like a postage stamp on some people's systems.

Being pedantic, screenshots & photos posted here are usually 24 bit. :P

...I think I am fighting a losing battle with some highly affluent ... ;)....folks here, using their 48"+ wide, HD, TV Screens as Monitors!.... :o...!

Paul...with a 15" Portable, Black and white Colour! Analogue TV.... :-*...!

Fozzer wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 6:18am:

...I think I am fighting a losing battle with some highly affluent ... ;)....folks here, using their 48"+ wide, HD, TV Screens as Monitors!.... :o...! Paul...with a 15" Portable, Black and white Colour! TV.... :-*...!

You can't stop progress Paul. You could always blow some of your savings on a nice wide-screen monitor. ;)

it is hard but you can still get some very crisp shots with a 150kb

but the 1024*786 i dont like but i cant do anything with it :)

I too would like to see an image size increase, but I understand that there are still a number of folks out there with very slow connections. Plus, adjustments in this field could lead to substantially higher strains on the server's storage capacity.
As Leigh said, you can still get great images with the 150kb limit. Just look in the StudioV galleries for proof.

What I would like is an increase in the 600k thread limit. On some of my photo shoots, posting only 4 shots a thread means a lot of threads.

It's morning here and most of my brain cells didn't hear the alarm so could someone please explain.  Are we talking file size or forum display size?  My preference would be an increase in file size rather than picture width and/or depth or are these so intertwined that you can't have one without the other?

I think originally it was just file size. There is no reason to make them any bigger pixel wise.

specter177 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 12:25am:

What I would like is an increase in the 600k thread limit. On some of my photo shoots, posting only 4 shots a thread means a lot of threads.

That's one of the reasons why I think the 150kb single image limit could be raised... If we are allowed lots of pictures for under 600K, then why not have one single image at 600K? Isn't that near enough the same thing? Maybe not allow 600K entries, but 200-300kb for a thread with a single screenshot seems fairly reasonable to me. It is still less than the maximum limit, but it is making use of the memory we've been allowed to have.

Leigh wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 6:27am:

it is hard but you can still get some very crisp shots with a 150kb

Please give me a short tutorial - I know you're correct - the evidence is here, unfortunately not under my user name  :).

olderndirt wrote on Feb 28^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:

Leigh wrote on Feb 23rd, 2010 at 6:27am: it is hard but you can still get some very crisp shots with a 150kb Please give me a short tutorial - I know you're correct - the evidence is here, unfortunately not under my user name  :).

Its the compression that kills a screen shot.

If you have a 'save for web' option on your editing software, use that instead and move the slider till you are just under the 150kb limit. I generally aim for 100kb per shot.

Also be aware that as a general rule, areas with shades of red or yellow (yellow you can sometimes get away with if it makes up most of the shot) don't usually cooperate well with compression. I would love to be proven wrong on that though!  :)

wrote on Feb 28^th, 2010 at 6:48pm:

Also be aware that as a general rule, areas with shades of red or yellow don't usually cooperate well with compression. I would love to be proven wrong on that though!  :)

I would say that green is the most graphics intensive colour.

Ratio isn't an issue here, the file size is. I was a mod when Pete raised the file size from 100kb to 150kb and the image size to 1024w from 800w. The general consensus then was this was a good move. Times change, I'm sure most people have faster connections now, the main reason for capping size and ratios was for members on dial-up, I'd be interested if any of us are still on that now. Maybe a poll is needed?

wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 5:20pm:

Ratio isn't an issue here, the file size is. I was a mod when Pete raised the file size from 100kb to 150kb and the image size to 1024w from 800w. The general consensus then was this was a good move. Times change, I'm sure most people have faster connections now, the main reason for capping size and ratios was for members on dial-up, I'd be interested if any of us are still on that now. Maybe a poll is needed?

Poll idea is good.

The poll idea is a great one, and may provide some push, but it REALLY needs to be somewhere that will get some traffic and be seen, without being in a spot where another mod might move it.

We had that widescreen/regular screen poll a while back, when image width came up, and it was no contest. Maybe a dozen people out of 100 had a regular non-wide screen monitor.

I bet the same will hold true for connection speed.

I really like Machineman9's point about the thread limit, and how to utilize that limit with your shots, (one 600k shot vs. 4 150k shots).  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

wrote on Feb 28^th, 2010 at 6:48pm:

Also be aware that as a general rule, areas with shades of red or yellow (yellow you can sometimes get away with if it makes up most of the shot) don't usually cooperate well with compression. I would love to be proven wrong on that though!  :)

It is wrong I am afraid. Image compression works on byte patterns, the colour is irrelevant. Reds and yellow just generate different byte patterns to compress.

http://www.digital-essence.co.uk/misc/fsx/red.jpg
http://www.digital-essence.co.uk/misc/fsx/green.jpg
http://www.digital-essence.co.uk/misc/fsx/blue.jpg
http://www.digital-essence.co.uk/misc/fsx/cyan.jpg
http://www.digital-essence.co.uk/misc/fsx/yellow.jpg

You will get slight variations in size due to the sequences of bytes at the beginning and the end which can influence the pattern recognition.

ShaneG wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2010 at 5:15am:

The poll idea is a great one, and may provide some push, but it REALLY needs to be somewhere that will get some traffic and be seen, without being in a spot where another mod might move it. We had that widescreen/regular screen poll a while back, when image width came up, and it was no contest. Maybe a dozen people out of 100 had a regular non-wide screen monitor. I bet the same will hold true for connection speed.

If you analyse the server logs, you should be able to see how many users (if any) are not hitting the download limits on the free site. If everyone is hitting the 30Kb/s limit, then they should be okay with most images of decent sizes. Anyone who has paid for Premium acces is probably downloading much faster, as that is the major benefit of membership.

Mr Shanks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

olderndirt wrote on Feb 28th, 2010 at 12:11pm: Leigh wrote on Feb 23rd, 2010 at 6:27am: it is hard but you can still get some very crisp shots with a 150kb Please give me a short tutorial - I know you're correct - the evidence is here, unfortunately not under my user name  :). Its the compression that kills a screen shot. If you have a 'save for web' option on your editing software, use that instead and move the slider till you are just under the 150kb limit. I generally aim for 100kb per shot.

A very good point... I see a lot of complaining in these forums about how "compression killed the shot", then I look at the image "weight" and see that the poster took their 400KB masterpiece and saved it at less than 50K or something like that.
I also aim for about 100, and with the GIMP, it's easy...before you "save as" at the new file size, you can adjust the quality percentage and see the resulting weight before you save. This allows you to maximize the quality but keep it within forum limits.

I'm sure other commonly-used editing programs have similar features... worth remembering when the size limit is eventually increased, yet people still whine about how "compression killed it".  ;D

I've also pretty much given up on images over 800 pixels wide...it allows just about every user to see the whole image without scrolling, and that size- or even smaller- can be incredibly effective if it's a good image.



As for thread limits, I find that 5 or 6 photos or screenshots is usually plenty for a single thread... nothing enhances your editing skills like having a limit.  ;)

beaky wrote on Mar 13^th, 2010 at 11:24pm:

A very good point... I see a lot of complaining in these forums about how "compression killed the shot", then I look at the image "weight" and see that the poster took their 400KB masterpiece and saved it at less than 50K or something like that.

I couldn't agree more. It's a case of people blaming the rules when the fault lies with their lack of knowledge on working with images.


Quote:

I also aim for about 100, and with the GIMP, it's easy...before you "save as" at the new file size, you can adjust the quality percentage and see the resulting weight before you save. This allows you to maximize the quality but keep it within forum limits. I'm sure other commonly-used editing programs have similar features... worth remembering when the size limit is eventually increased, yet people still whine about how "compression killed it".  ;D ........................ As for thread limits, I find that 5 or 6 photos or screenshots is usually plenty for a single thread... nothing enhances your editing skills like having a limit.  ;)

If you look at screenshots & photos posted by the real masters you will see what can be done within the limits. This is all part of the skill involved & I've seen some incredible images posted here over the years. You don't need expensive or complicated software to do it, just a basic understanding of how it works & the best way to achieve the result you want. All the software I tested in this topic has a Save for Web or similar feature --> Resize experiment

For anyone having problems resizing/saving images for posting on the Internet I suggest trying some of them to see which one suits you.

PS. I was thinking of doing a tute showing how to resize/save images with some of the popular free software & posting it at my Lair. Then I wondered how many people it's aimed at would actually bother to read it. :-/

Hagar wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 3:53am:

. PS. I was thinking of doing a tute showing how to resize/save images with some of the popular free software & posting it at my Lair. Then I wondered how many people it's aimed at would actually bother to read it. :-/

..Instruction Manuals....Aircraft Owners Manuals...Aircraft Manuals, Pilots Manuals, etc, etc...?...

..it makes you wonder?... ::)...!

Paul...an avid Manual Reader... :-*...!

Hagar wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 3:53am:

PS. I was thinking of doing a tute showing how to resize/save images with some of the popular free software & posting it at my Lair. Then I wondered how many people it's aimed at would actually bother to read it. :-/

If you make that tutorial, I'll make it a sticky it in the Freeware section.  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

ShaneG wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 5:40am:

Hagar wrote on Mar 14th, 2010 at 3:53am: PS. I was thinking of doing a tute showing how to resize/save images with some of the popular free software & posting it at my Lair. Then I wondered how many people it's aimed at would actually bother to read it. :-/ If you make that tutorial, I'll make it a sticky it in the Freeware section.  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

And I would read it! I could use some advice.   :)

Steve M wrote on Mar 14^th, 2010 at 7:40am:

ShaneG wrote on Mar 14th, 2010 at 5:40am: Hagar wrote on Mar 14th, 2010 at 3:53am: PS. I was thinking of doing a tute showing how to resize/save images with some of the popular free software & posting it at my Lair. Then I wondered how many people it's aimed at would actually bother to read it. :-/ If you make that tutorial, I'll make it a sticky it in the Freeware section.  [smiley=thumbsup.gif] And I would read it! I could use some advice.   :)

OK. I'll give it some thought. It might be better in separate sections for each piece of software as each one has its own little quirks. Here's a list of suitable software, all unconditional freeware. Which one do you suggest I start with?

BDSizer
GIMP
IrfanView
Magix Xtreme Photo Designer 6
Paint.NET
PhotoFiltre
Photo Pos Pro
PhotoScape

I'd say the big three to start with are

-Infranview
-Gimp
-Paint.net

And probably in that order of importance.

Personally, I use Irfanview.. I wouldn't know what the majority use though.  :)

Right. I'll see what I can do. It might take a while as I need to be in the mood.

First one's up. Comments appreciated. http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1268597411