Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Embedding Images (Read 24231 times)
Embedding Images
Luxor, you've said 1.2M is too much?? 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???

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #25 –
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?;)

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Josh – on
Well, on topic.  I will consider the size of images

Quote from: Josh – on
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.
Quote from: Josh – on
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.
I would suggest Frenzies way of doing things is the best way of showing something like them off.
Quote from: Frenzie – on
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.
What's not to like about such a thread.
The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Luxor – on

Just think a whole thread about space images with the option for folks to view the full size images if they so desire.
What's not to like about such a thread.

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...

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #29 –
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.)

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #30 –
The forum isn't very friendly toward data URIs. ;)

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #31 –
I wondered about that. You broke the bottle on purpose...

Quote from: ersi – on
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. 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).

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #33 –
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?
???

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #34 –
Well, you might want to note the difference between the Wikipedia thumbnail (87 kB) and the 195.38 MB full-size image.

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #35 –
@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? 

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #36 –
It only changes the display. Any resizing happens in the browser.

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #37 –
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.

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #38 –
ׂ

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Frenzie – on

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.

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #40 –
Quote from: jax – on

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.

Re: Embedding Images

Reply #41 –
ׂ