Greetings . . .

I have received considerable feedback about the Photo Library capabilities that we enabled almost 2 years ago: Inliners Post circa Sept '19

Many have suggested that it is just to much work to curate photos in this way before posting. Personally I think that the Forums medium is not unlike an online magazine – where one takes time to pick and choose one’s words and illustrates the objects/subjects of those words with equally curated images.

In an effort to simplify things I have configured the upload compression algorithms in the Photo Library gallery forum to enable ‘quick uploads’. These routines will take an unprocessed image and re-scale it on the fly. The result will be a 128 pixel thumbnail, 760 pixel medium image and a 1024 pixel full size image – with {img} tagged URLs. The routines are not sophisticated in terms of orientation – the image will be evaluated to determine if the maximum dimension is height or width – this max dimension is then used to scale both dimensions in kind.

I have done some experimenting with the compression routines to settle on a 3-megabyte 3MB limit. The compression routines are resource intensive. We will monitor this limit.

The 3MB limit should support most cell phone images – but newer phones are putting out some very high resolution content. These and 35mm DSLR photos will have to be rough cut down-sized before uploading.

Regards,
stock49

stock49,

This sound XLNT, I will try this out today when I post.

Thank you so much for taking the time to set this up, if it does work seamlessly, this will help a LOT, IMO.

this is a test:

This is a 768x1024 image:



Now, here's an interesting point, please just consider this stock.

This image is 768x1024 (3MB)
-rw-r--r-- 1 aland aland 2.9M Oct 17 17:47 img_4295.jpg

The resolution of this one is 3024x4032 per my image viewer, but notice it's actually half the size of the previous image.
-rw-r--r-- 1 aland aland 1.5M Oct 17 17:47 img_4296.jpg

This one is 3024x4032 and is 3MB
-rw-r--r-- 1 aland aland 2.9M Oct 17 17:47 img_4297.jpg

This one is 3042x4032 and is half the size.
-rw-r--r-- 1 aland aland 1.5M Oct 17 17:47 img_4298.jpg


The point here is just to show that all images are not created equal, there are a lot of factors as to why the images end up the size they do.

On top of that you previously had the size set to 720x960 and that could have contributed to some of the issues as it really uses a 768x1024 resolution.

Programmers spend massive amounts of man hours to try and figure this stuff out. If it was easy they wouldn't pay people like me what they do.

I only resized the one image, isn't it interesting that even though it is 768x1024 it is twice as big as 2 of the standard images off my phone. I have it set for max resolution, 3024x4032/4032x3024 (portrait vs. landscape). Everything needs to be tested and checked, IOW, portrait vs. landscape, that will bite you. I hope this makes sense, but the bottom line is that all images are not created equal.

I'm gonna try and stick weld that press back together today. I'm thinking a thin bead of cellulose (6010 or 6011) to blast through the paint and a cap with 7018.

The one other things that needs to be addressed is making the links for the images either available when people are typing their post, or to allow them to insert either a thumbnail/full-size image, as Stovebolt does. It has to be possible as they use the same software.