Auto Image Resizing?

[Q_BE]

You may notice that my Jennifer Love Hewitt image homage in my signature is MIA. That is because of a coding glitch somewhere in the forum that updates my profile and displays my image at 120 x 6 pixels rather than its full-size 400x20 pixels.

Here's the code for my erstwhile signature:

Code:

[b]TZ007:[/b] "Such eloquence in the service of breasts makes my heart fairly glow to bursting, I tell you." :D
[url=http://jenniferlovehewittonline.com][img]http://i44.tinypic.com/2hykis8.jpg[/img][/url]

[url=http://qwizzicalbe.blogspot.com][color=#FFF47B]Q-BE's Ramblings[/color][/url]
Credit to [b]ROUNDandHEAVY[/b] for my awesome avatar! ;D

Here's what the forum makes my signature do when I update it in my profile:

Code:

[b]TZ007:[/b] "Such eloquence in the service of breasts makes my heart fairly glow to bursting, I tell you." :D
[url=http://jenniferlovehewittonline.com][img width=120 height=6]http://i44.tinypic.com/2hykis8.jpg[/img][/url]

[url=http://qwizzicalbe.blogspot.com][color=#FFF47B]Q-BE's Ramblings[/color][/url]
Credit to [b]ROUNDandHEAVY[/b] for my awesome avatar! ;D

Leading to this:

TZ007: "Such eloquence in the service of breasts makes my heart fairly glow to bursting, I tell you."


Q-BE's Ramblings
Credit to ROUNDandHEAVY for my awesome avatar!

Any hope that this gets fixed soon? If not, I'll live. I've got to redo the original JLH homage again to honor my status as "Official TOF & BEA JLH Lover".

Q-"Wish me luck"-BE

EDIT: As an further example of the image wackiness, I present this code for you:

Code:

[img]http://i44.tinypic.com/2hykis8.jpg[/img]

Leading to this:

[auto_reply]

Nope.  It is working as intended.  That is the code that is reponsible for the pop out window on attachments larger than 120 pixels wide, and in particular, it was addressing the embedding of animated gifs several meg in size that were crippling visitors' processors.  As a work-around, try putting your banner in an attachment in the off topic and testing board and link your signature from there.  Keep in mind when you are designing these things that they are cumulative.

[auto_reply]

I have successfully linked it, just go grab the code.

[Q_BE]

I have successfully linked it, just go grab the code.

Thanks for your help. I presume this means there will no longer be any direct image hotlinking from sites like Imageshack.us or others in full size? Does this also mean DJPFC will no longer be able to create his full-size "picture links" to content that has been posted to his models' websites?

Sincerely,

Q-BE

[auto_reply]

Thanks to your continual questioning, I have discovered that images are merely displayed at a reduced size and haven't been altered in any way.  Such behaviors are noted and will factor into the final decision on the modification.

[Q_BE]

Glad to be of any assistance I can. When a verdict is rendered, I eagerly await your elaborations on the legal methodologies for including a picture in a post, specifically related to images being rendered in their full size on the direct thread, such as my "Welcome Wagon" posts as we have discussed in the past.

Yours truly,

Q-BE

[Q_BE]

I respectfully inquire to the mods as to what verdict, if any, has been rendered on the subject of image content in posts and the automatic resizing function that inhibits full-size pictures from being direct-linked to posts?

Sincerely,

Q-BE

[bignatslover]

I am with Q-BE on this one.  Sometimes we need to make the inline image a little larger.  If the BEA owner is worried about some kind of abuse then a forced size limit of something like 1024x768 could be imposed.  But to watch all of our best efforts be auto-shrunk into a max of 120x120 makes our hearts sad.  

Mod edit: I don't know what, if any, changes have been made re: this concern. If the matter hasn't been resolve to your/Q_BE's satisfaction yet, and what you request is reasonable/doable, I'm sure Auto_Reply can assist you. You're always much better off PMing a mod directly (so as to start a dialog) than simply posting a query publicly and waiting for someone to wander by. -Palomine

[Q_BE]

Intriguing that this thread would be re-upped as I return to the Net world from a lengthy absence yet again.

Anyway, from what I have learned over the period of time this restriction has been in place, pictures that are "hotlinked" directly from the internet to posts are automatically reduced to a thumbnail size. You may notice this most glaringly in the images posted on the various model threads by our dearly beloved DJPFC, which are hotlinked from PinupFiles/PinupGlam. Whether he has noticed or whether he cares is an entirely different matter, but what is possible is to select the option to "View Image", which in most cases means the browser will load only that picture into the browser window/tab, and when you do so, the hotlinked image previously crushed to a shadow of its former self will instead gloriously expand to its true proportions, freed from the damnable tyranny of the forum PHP coding!!!……

…ahem, got a little carried away there.

Almost as an aside, if you attach the picture to your message in order to display it full-size as you were planning to do by hotlinking into your post, you can do this:

(1) Post it initially as an attachment.
(2) Click the image to view it through the pop-up window viewer of the forum.
(3) Copy the HTML code that the forum generates to display the image in the pop-up viewer (either by copying the URL bar or by selecting the "copy image location" function in your browser).
(4) Having done all that, edit your message, placing the code you copied into an [IMG] UBB code tag at the point in your message you desire to have it.
(5) Save your modified message with the attachment and now also the full-size image you wished to display in the first place.

Frankly, I think it ruins the effect for some posts when you're trying to use an image as the whole message, as g00ber, pedonbio, JJ, and others often do.

Q-"My two more cents"-BE

Mod edit: re: the thumbnail size issue, there are some trade-offs. We'll be trying a change and we'll see how that works. Making them too small creates problems in some situations and too large creates other problems. NO setting will please all users all the time.

[gonZo]

OK, we're experimentally increasing the thumbnail size to 500x500 pixels.

Due to some crazy/stupid limitations in the forum software, this is what's going to happen: any image that exceeds 500x500 pixels in height or width will be scaled down (for display only) to fit inside a 500x500 pixel area. However, any image that is smaller than 500x500 pixels in height and width will be scaled down to fit inside a 250x250 pixel area.

I know: that's absurd. That's the only way it seems to work, though, and we can't currently do anything about it.

We look forward to your comments. 

[Palomine]

JMHO feedback as a user, but IMO, the 500 pixel stamp is too large, given that so many full-size images are barely much bigger than that... so big are the 500 pixel stamps that the total data/time needed to load them AND the original image often seems 175% as long/large as loading the original image itself, almost defeating the purpose of having a low-rez/'quick' loading stamp/preview (though you can forego opening the full rez images and just 'DL link' from the stamp as always of course). Since the new larger stamp size went into effect this AM, the total load time for threads feels perceptively longer to me.

Plus, such large stamps have to make popular threads ridiculously long (to scroll through) for users still running 1024x768 screens.

Again, JMHO and I defer to the opinion of the masses.

To wit:

[gonZo]

The first load of any page since the thumbnail size was increased should be slower because the new bigger thumbs are being downloaded instead of being fetched from your browser's cache. Try revisiting some pages you loaded after the change; do they come up faster the second time?

In any case, maybe 400x400 would be better?

Pal replies: Yes, once cached it'll come up faster (than the first load) regardless of size. I was pointing out that with the big stamp almost as big as many original images, it's almost/essentially as if they've got to be loaded twice. I personally prefer stamps to be fastish/smallish (since that best serves their function IMO) but again, I'm content to go along with the majority feeling on this.

gonZo muses: Hmm. Reading back in this thread, I see that (by increasing the thumbnail size) we're basically working against a modification that A_R got the admins to install back in January.

[TheZookie007]

Seeing attachments much bigger is a pleasant surprise...much better than those really tiny postage stamps of just 24 hours ago. But I take Pal's point too. The attachment should be big but not too big. How big is too big has yet to be defined. I guess the real test will come when I try to embed an image into an actual post, as opposed to attaching it.

[bignatslover]

Well imagine my surprise when I logged in today and enjoyed awesome visible attachments.  W00T!  Thank you mods for all your hard work!

And when kept to 400x400 the load speed is definitely NOT impaired (unless of course the member is connecting via a 300-baud acoustic modem on a Commodore VIC-20).

[gonZo]

We're still at 500x500 at the moment, but maybe we'll try 400x400 later today (Saturday). As Pal pointed out, we ideally want them to be big enough to show a decent amount of detail, but small enough to provide a significant load-speed advantage.

[SamV]

Well ... yeah ... that's my home computer setup except I've got a faster 2400 baud modem.

And it's amazing how XP runs on a 6502 processor once it boots up from the data cassette.
 

[gonZo]

We've downshifted to 400x400. Please let us know how this works for you.

[Q_BE]

Q-BE Note: Post from thread The Next Food Network Star -- Aarti reposted here for on-topic discussion

Q, we just increased the size of the thumbnails to 400x400 at your request... so why have you started image-tagging your attachments? Most people can see the images just fine at 400x400. (In fact, the 400x400 image in your post looks better than the big one IMO, because they're so low-def.)

Okay, I've fixed the post. If you really want to know why I "image-tag" my attachments, I usually find that the positioning of a picture within a post can say as much as the picture itself. It's a bit frustrating to have a picture you'd like to display FIRST at the bottom (as I wanted to do in the post above).

As to the image attachment thumbnail size being changed at my request, that's news to me. I well remember the thread in which we discussed that, but I'm far from being the only one to credit (or to blame) for that particular change. If I were actually that powerful, I'd make all BEA women spontaneously grow 12 cup sizes, but as they say: wish in one hand, sh*t in the other, and see which fills first.

Q-"But thanks nonetheless"-BE

EDIT: Perhaps this discussion and this edited comment should go in the Site Issues thread covering this topic, however, I noticed that images that are below 400x400 in resolution default to an even smaller thumbnail size, such as my recent post of a Nanny McPhee pic in Word Association, and additionally, the picture no longer becomes a clickable link to the pop-up picture window of we all have become so fond. Just some thoughts on this perennially-frustrating code monster we call a forum.

[gonZo]

Thanks for fixing your post, It wasn't broken or wrong, but we don't want to encourage people to do that, because images posted that way load twice and defeat the purpose of thumbnailing.

You make a good point about position of the image relative to text, but in a case like that, it would look better to post your attachment in a trash thread in the Off-Topic forum, then post the image-tagged link in the thread where you want it. (As we've explained before, though, if you post an image in the OTF with the intention of image-linking it in a second thread on the same day, the 1-1-1 rule applies to the image-link in the second thread because that's where you intend the image to be seen.)

Yeah, we have a couple of conflicting scripts thumbnailing images in the forum, so images smaller than 400x400 get scaled to 250x250, and external image-links get scaled to something pathetic like 150x150. It's partly the crappy forum software and partly a modification we were testing to prevent large animated gifs from slowing down the forum. It all needs to be sorted out, but you already know what sort of timetable that will happen on. 
_
gonZo

[Q_BE]

Thanks for fixing your post, It wasn't broken or wrong, but we don't want to encourage people to do that, because images posted that way load twice and defeat the purpose of thumbnailing.

I've only done that a few times since I discovered that it was a work-around solution for the inability to insert images of relative size directly into the posts without the awful 150x150 image-resizing the forum does to external image links, which has occurred since we rebooted the forum after the 2009 Forum Fastapazool.

You make a good point about position of the image relative to text, but in a case like that, it would look better to post your attachment in a trash thread in the Off-Topic forum, then post the image-tagged link in the thread where you want it. (As we've explained before, though, if you post an image in the OTF with the intention of image-linking it in a second thread on the same day, the 1-1-1 rule applies to the image-link in the second thread because that's where you intend the image to be seen.)

Yeah, I understand the rules of your suggested work-around perfectly, however, I've never been entirely comfortable with posting a "Trash" thread simply to attach an image to a post to which I would like to link externally in another thread. I think I take that from my early forum days, at a movies forum which shall not be named, where I tended to struggle to make on-topic posts and where threads I posted were continually scrutinized by others for appropriate content and context. Not a fun way to live, if you ask me.

As an aside, do you think you mods could create an official Off-Topic Forum sticky "Trash" thread to which we users would be directed to post attachments of images which we would like to link externally in other threads. That would be, of course, provided we only post images of a reasonable size (say less than 800Wx1200H), and provided we submit links to the posts wherein our internally attached, externally linked pictures reside, subject to the 1-1-1-1 rule?

Yeah, we have a couple of conflicting scripts thumbnailing images in the forum, so images smaller than 400x400 get scaled to 250x250, and external image-links get scaled to something pathetic like 150x150. It's partly the crappy forum software and partly a modification we were testing to prevent large animated gifs from slowing down the forum. It all needs to be sorted out, but you already know what sort of timetable that will happen on.  
_
gonZo

Well, at the very least, I'd like to see the script fixed that borks attachments smaller than 400x400 and prevents them from being made clickable by which they would be opened into our wonderful pop-up image window. It would be a start.

Q-"The Owner's going to have to pony up some money here, eventually"-BE

[Q_BE]

* Q_BE can't stop giggling *

You did it! You really did it! Un-flippin'-believable!

Q-"You think you've seen it all…"-BE

[gonZo]

As an aside, do you think you mods could create an official Off-Topic Forum sticky "Trash" thread to which we users would be directed to post attachments of images which we would like to link externally in other threads. That would be, of course, provided we only post images of a reasonable size (say less than 800Wx1200H), and provided we submit links to the posts wherein our internally attached, externally linked pictures reside, subject to the 1-1-1-1 rule?

Done. It's (unimaginatively) titled "Image Attachment Thread". The mods will have to discuss whether the 1-1-1 rule also applies inside that thread. For the time being, assume that it does.

[Q_BE]

Done. It's (unimaginatively) titled "Image Attachment Thread". The mods will have to discuss whether the 1-1-1 rule also applies inside that thread. For the time being, assume that it does.

Hmm, that IS an interesting conundrum. It would be difficult to have ONE thread be different. On top of that, it would be even more work for you mods to ascertain that every photo is legitimately part of another thread. I think we may really be making the problem worse than better. I think sticking to 1-1-1-1 inside that particular thread should be the rule because it's just easier that way. For those who may use it, it might only be once a day anyway, so there you go.

Q-"Solutions more difficult than problems at the BEA? Of course!"-BE

[solvegas]

Gonzo is in heaven ! 

[gonZo]

After thinking about it, I tend to agree that 1-1-1 should apply in both the Image Attachment Thread and the thread where you link to your attached image. The "one exceptional thread" confusion you mention is one reason. Another is that we'd like this "linked image from OTF" method to be something people use only when it's justified (so that it won't undo the loading-speed gains derived from thumbnailing). Limiting users to one of them per day (by asserting 1-1-1 inside the OTF thread) gives everybody the option to use it, but not the option to overuse it.

[Magiciano]

Great idea Gonzo.  This has been on my mind for a while.

[Q_BE]

After thinking about it, I tend to agree that 1-1-1 should apply in both the Image Attachment Thread and the thread where you link to your attached image. The "one exceptional thread" confusion you mention is one reason. Another is that we'd like this "linked image from OTF" method to be something people use only when it's justified (so that it won't undo the loading-speed gains derived from thumbnailing). Limiting users to one of them per day (by asserting 1-1-1 inside the OTF thread) gives everybody the option to use it, but not the option to overuse it.

This is pretty much the same logic I've been using in this situation. The only thing I am a little bummed about is the idea that the picture "to be linked" applies to 1-1-1 in both the thread it's attached (the Image Attachment Thread) and also the thread in which it is subsequently linked full-size (for effect). You're basically getting only 1 image for the price of two.

I was thinking maybe a slight modification in the rules of the game whereby you can post exactly 2 images per 24 hours in the Image Attachment Thread, to make up for that shortfall. If you didn't want to do that, maybe you could exclude the 1-1-1 for images specifically linked from the Image Attachment thread when users additionally provide the appropriate "post link" reference (located in the title of every post) to the picture in the Image Attachment thread. This would function somewhat similarly to what users do in asserting copyright (because they place information about their copyright in the post of the pictures they want omitted from the 1-1-1 rule).

Let me know if either of those two ideas seems feasible to you.

Q-"The idea man"-BE

[Q_BE]

Great idea Gonzo.  This has been on my mind for a while.

It was my idea, actually, but I don't care who gets the credit. This is awesome.

Q-"Damn the forum code! Full speed ahead!"-BE

[Magiciano]

An image posted in this thread counts as your one-post-per-24-hours in this thread AND in the thread where you post the image-link to it.

gonZo

counts as your one-post-per-24-hours in this thread AND in the thread where you post the image-link to it.

That seems kind of harsh but it is your house not mine.

[Q_BE]

counts as your one-post-per-24-hours in this thread AND in the thread where you post the image-link to it.

That seems kind of harsh but it is your house not mine.

I'm still discussing options with Gonzo in the "Auto Image-Resizing" thread. Stay tuned.

Q-"Tougher to work out than a Middle East Peace Deal"-BE

[gonZo]

That seems kind of harsh but it is your house not mine.

We thumbnail images in the forum to make the pages load quickly, but this alternate form of image display works against thumbnailing and slows down page-loading, so it's intended to be used for exceptional cases. You can still post as many ordinary attachments per day as you want (provided each one is in a different thread, as described in the Posting Limits section of the Forum Rules.).

[gonZo]

This is pretty much the same logic I've been using in this situation. The only thing I am a little bummed about is the idea that the picture "to be linked" applies to 1-1-1 in both the thread it's attached (the Image Attachment Thread) and also the thread in which it is subsequently linked full-size (for effect). You're basically getting only 1 image for the price of two.

I was thinking maybe a slight modification in the rules of the game whereby you can post exactly 2 images per 24 hours in the Image Attachment Thread, to make up for that shortfall. If you didn't want to do that, maybe you could exclude the 1-1-1 for images specifically linked from the Image Attachment thread when users additionally provide the appropriate "post link" reference (located in the title of every post) to the picture in the Image Attachment thread. This would function somewhat similarly to what users do in asserting copyright (because they place information about their copyright in the post of the pictures they want omitted from the 1-1-1 rule).

Let me know if either of those two ideas seems feasible to you.

Q-"The idea man"-BE

But you're NOT getting one image for the price of two; you're getting one image for the price of ONE. If there were a limit on the total number of images you could post per day throughout the forum, THEN you would be getting one image for the price of two. There's no limit, though, so there's no "price" for posting any image by this method (or the ordinary method).

The 1-1-1 rule just says that you can't post more than one image in the same thread in any 24-hour period. Using one image-tagged link per 24 hours gets you no closer to breaking the 1-1-1 rule than posting an ordinary attachment does. So there is no "shortfall" to make up for.

Regarding your second idea: that's too complicated, and it creates new rules to violate: the mods would have to moderate users who sporadically or chronically fail to come back and edit-in their post link references.

The advantage of doing it as I set it up is that all of the usual rules still apply, so there are no exceptions for anyone to remember. (The mods have to remember that we're waiving the "duplicate posts" rule when the OTF thread is involved, but that's relatively easy.)

I don't want to spend the week debating this. Let's try it this way for now, ok?

[Q_BE]

Is it me, or does this discussion feel strangely similar to the discussion over the "Welcome Wagon" attachment we had a few months back?

Anyway, I only meant that "one image for the price of two" in the sense that it's the same image file you're posting in two different threads, once as an image attachment in one thread for the purposes of posting the image full-size in the other, and having that single image count as your image for the day in both threads seems rather silly, but I understand it's for simplicity's sake rather than anything else. So, rather than fight the power, at least we now have an official "Garbage" thread to throw images we'd like to share full-size in context elsewhere.

Q-"This just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser"-BE

PS. Personally, I don't think that "Garbage" thread needs to be a sticky. It's not necessary, and it takes up space at the top of the page.

[gonZo]

Yeah, the Welcome Wagon thing was a bit different, but the issues are related.

If the OTF thread were not sticky, and nobody used it for a while, it would get pushed off the index page and become difficult to find, and people would start creating their own threads for the same purpose. Rather than having dozens of threads in OTF containing 2 or 3 images apiece, it's more organized to use one sticky thread. So let's do that.

I've moved the comments from the OTF thread into this one, for two reasons: to keep the discussion in this thread, and to reserve the OTF thread JUST for the posting of images. The OTF thread isn't a discussion thread; it's only a tool for posting elsewhere.

[Magiciano]

Now I know that I am really going to screw this up.  I am totally confused as to where I can post what.  I hope I don't break any more rules.