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 

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. 

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

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:

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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


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.

Quote:

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

Quote:


Poll idea is good.

Quote:

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.

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

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". 

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. 

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


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

..it makes you wonder?... ...!

Paul...an avid Manual Reader... ...!

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



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

I'd say the big three to start with are

-Infranview
-Gimp
-Paint.net

And probably in that order of importance.

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