[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: [Select]

[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: [Select]

[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: [Select]

[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.