Author Topic: Photo file and Display Size abuse.. (Read 18006 times)

MaxT · « **Reply #33 on:** May 13, 2006, 03:21:47 PM »

To me it seems that this site has important technologies and innovations that can be vitally important for the very survival of whole communities in poor areas and destroyed-infrastructure-areas (as after destructive wars). So the village smith uses the communal clockwork powered pc and slow, unsure phoneline, to find instructions for irrigation by wind energy.... and gets the answer: "Sorry. You'll all have to starve to death. If you really would have wanted to see these blueprints, you would have afforded to buy broadband connection to your desolate, destroyed, location".

(end of topic communication, what follows is just opinionated anecdote)

I was against the virus/malware/wastefulness profilerating broadband speeds... until phonecompany made the local, ordinary phone using 10x more expensive than buying broadband connection from them. Now I'm kind of hooked to all the useless porn n' stuff, and actual communication of ideas is no faster than it was in 1994 with Tin -program in the Usenet.

electrondady1 · « **Reply #34 on:** May 13, 2006, 04:00:16 PM »

i like to post photos sometimes

on my xp system if i right click on a photo and then click on resize it makes a smaller copy. hope that is ok cause i know nothing about compressing stuff.

wind pirate · « **Reply #35 on:** May 13, 2006, 04:04:02 PM »

I'd love to see large photos. At my current 44k, that takes forever. I've also been waiting for broadband, cable, wi-fi, DSL, etc. I won't pay $700 up front and $79 a month for satallite, because the lag is not sutiable for my web conferences. That is the price you pay for living in the country. I wouldn't trade the solace of my farm for hi-speed under any condition. The truth is - some of us just don't have a choice.

If anyone can give me an alternative - I'll jump. Zip is 13045 in the good ol USA. (Peoples Republic of New York though)

Wind Pirate

commanda · « **Reply #36 on:** May 13, 2006, 04:08:28 PM »

Editor,

Do we have the technology to do what eBay and others do. Have the server re-size the pics as they're uploaded?

I believe you need to have the php gdm module and imagemagick (or nconvert) available on the server, and obviously some php code added to the upload function.

I'm pretty sure most of the photo-gallery modules for the likes of php-nuke have this functionality as standard.

Of course, if the server is running on Linux, a bash script executed from cron every so many hours to delete any files bigger than X kilobytes would be almost trivial.

It would probably also be useful if the "User Files" page also listed the file sizes after the file name. With a sum total at the bottom?

Amanda

Sponge · « **Reply #37 on:** May 13, 2006, 05:03:12 PM »

Be extremely careful setting your camera to 640x480. you'll regret it the day soemthing very special happens and you see you got only extremely low-res photos of it, not suitable for a (printed) image the size of (nearly) a stamp...

I think the limit should be mentioned when creading a new post. I wasn't aware of this until I saw this topic by coincidence. (just my opinion )

nanotech · « **Reply #38 on:** May 13, 2006, 07:05:45 PM »

I had this program for other reasons on my computer, but never realised it did such a good job!!

Just tried it in another thread and I must say I now have a new image program!!

Very easy to use, and incredibly good at what I need it to do.

elvin1949 · « **Reply #39 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:11:06 PM »

Anything bigger than 640 by 480 won't fit my screen.

And no i can't change it.Old monitor.

To poor to get another one.

later

elvin

elvin1949 · « **Reply #40 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:16:29 PM »

Abyssunderground

I live in the boonie's.

BROADBAND-NOT AN OPTION

Dialup or nothing

Later

Elvin

elvin1949 · « **Reply #41 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:22:55 PM »

Louisiana is a third world nation ain't it.

71446

later

elvin

commanda · « **Reply #42 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:36:28 PM »

I've just been browsing the Scoop Admin guide,

http://scoop.kuro5hin.org/guide/4_14_Per_user_File.html#SECTION000414200000000000000

and found this.

4.14.2 File Uploads

File upload gives the user their own directory on the server where they can upload any file, subject to the limits imposed by the admin on upload size and total directory size.

Each user has his own directory and can only change his own directory, but all users can browse a user's files through the files link on the user info page.

To set up the upload area, the variable upload_path_user must be set to an absolute local path. Apache must have full write permissions to the directory, so it can manage files in it. The directory must also be accessible from outside via the web. The variable upload_link_user must be set to an absolute external path or URL, the external address of the directory named in the previous variable. The directory named in the above two variables is used as a base directory; each user gets a subdirectory for his own files.

Permission to use the upload area is given using the perm upload_user in the Groups Admin Tool. This feature is given on a per-group basis.

The variables upload_delete and upload_rename determine whether or not users with permission to use the upload area can also delete and rename their files, respectively. Since the file upload feature can be used to store files used by the user in stories published on the site, refusing to allow the user to delete or rename uploaded files can prevent broken links within the site.

To set file size and disk space limits, the variables upload_max_file_size and upload_user_quota are set to a positive number. In both cases, a value of zero disables the size limits and allows any size file to upload.

If Admin would care to set upload_max_file_size = 100K the problem would go away.

Amanda

nothing to lose · « **Reply #43 on:** May 14, 2006, 02:49:55 AM »

Commanda has a good idea there. Limit upload size, and mention it on the pics upload page in large text so people see the size limit.

Alot beter idea I think than users hosting images elsewhere.

A combination could work well though.

If users hosted the pics that are nice but not important elsewhere and embed them with Html in the posts it would save bandwith, not important if the nice ones someday get lost if they were just for looking at.

Important pics like how to do things, rewinding motors, building daul rotors should be uploaded here so there is no cahnce of losing them if some other site goes does later.

If I start posting pics sometime I will do that. Host the pretty pics not really important on my own site, but anything for how to do something pics upload here so the link never gets broke.

hvirtane · « **Reply #44 on:** May 14, 2006, 03:14:17 AM »

If Admin would care to set

upload_max_file_size = 100K

the problem would go away.

I think this would be really good.

- Hannu

pisces00797 · « **Reply #45 on:** May 14, 2006, 06:05:55 AM »

I have been around computers since almost the beginning (PET computers and VIC 20's) There was a saying back then ... that 'File size was always proportional to hard drive size into which it was going to fit'. Meaning that as soon as you got a larger hard drive ... the software packages got bigger to fill your now larger hard drive up. It seems that is kind of thinking has continued. I can sympathize with the editors. It is assumed almost ... that everyone has high speed internet and 'up to date computers'. Ignorance means people are not concerned with the facts that a 1 meg bitmap can be converted to a 40 k picture in jpeg format ... using very simple and free programs like Ifranview. I have had it and have been using it for years ... but people would almost laugh today if I told them that I use Win98 and an old DOS program like Ifranview. Actually had my sister tried to convince me that she understood that pictures would degrade over time in digital format and that she was convinced that pictures on film would be the only way to keep them for a life time. If you want to get a real funny look from me and get me started in a deep discussion ... try to convince that Kodak wasn't trying to convince people not to buy digital cameras now. Told her ... I could burn jpegs on a CD, bury it in the ground and come back 20 years from now and view them on my old Win98 with Ifranview. PLEASE. Ignorance breeds contempt. Uploading a 1 meg pictures means you are assuming that everyone has what you have. High speed and high resolution monitors. If you want to tell a story ... tell it for everyone to read ... not just the rich and lucky.

I was on dial up for 8 years ... and just recently got access to DSL. But it still wouldn't use my speed POWER to dump 1 meg pics online. I know what it is like to wait on dialup. I would just close the page and leave the article. Also ... does anyone take into concideration the space on the system operators hard drives ... of these nice people ... who do this out of courtesy? When you dump big files out of ignorance you fill up their servers faster than necessary. Keep doing it ... and they will have to buy more storage space ... or just shut the site down. And who would be to blame.

kurt · « **Reply #46 on:** May 14, 2006, 07:38:53 AM »

if admin set a file size limit that would be the end of uploading .pdf files and videos to the server.

SparWeb · « **Reply #47 on:** May 14, 2006, 08:45:30 AM »

Everyone's still talking about making it the site's responsibility with all these file conversion programs.

I know how to quickly trim down a gigantic photo to a very modest size ( I just finished doing so with 7 photos that started at 300Kb each - they are now 21Kb each.) I admit I've invested in Adobe Photoshop and its abilities vastly exceed those of Paint.

Here's a run-down:

Adobe Photoshop - the best. Full control of your image properties. Most user will be bewildered for years

ACDsee - Simpler. Gets the job done, but you still have to read the instructions to figure it out.

MS Paint - Useless. Just delete the icon.

If the site is going to take on any software, they should obtain a free-ware or share-ware photo editor with the ability to re-size photos and make users download it before they can upload pictures. Provide an easy link, etc. etc. Block any JPG upload that exceeds a reasonable size, and explain how to fix it.

Folks can learn to do things for themselves. Ironically, the JPEG format was invented to make graphics easier to print. Now that they're used extensively on the web, the concept of DPI seems to confuse 95% of users.

Good luck editors, this isn't an easy issue. I will support any decision you make.

stop4stuff · « **Reply #48 on:** May 14, 2006, 09:23:03 AM »

agreed pisces00797 (post#47),

I've been using computers for 30 years, and still own a working BBC model B.

I've also got dsl braodband (1mb/256), and, as you, I understand the importance of filesizes... shame others don't

simply put,

a 1mb image viewed 1000 times is 1 gig of bandwith, most ISP's have a bandwith 'free' limit over that they start charging... alot!

for those of you who have no idea what file size means... think money... other ppls money!

I have my own domain with some spare space, and an ISP domain with spare space...

If anyone wants to display large images, I am prepared to accept the image via email, resize it for this board and upload a copy of the original image that can be linked to... email paul AT stop4stuff DOT com to let me know.... please don't send images first!

paul

wdyasq · « **Reply #49 on:** May 14, 2006, 09:31:05 AM »

Stephen,

Thanks, I have been hoping someone would point out the responcibility of the poster. Near like complaining about free lunch - you are required to wear shoes and shirt and have good manors or you are not welcome at many tables.

"The Gimp" - http://www.gimp.org/ - is cross-platform now. I think it will do about everything Photo$hop will do. I like Gimps cost - free.

I do think it would be nice to have instructions for Ifranview, The Gimp and a few other free programs as tutorials showing how to reduce pictures to a managable size.

I wish folks would take responcibility for what they do. I wish folks wouldn't think government, or any other outside force, is the answer. Well rant to a managable blood pressure level now.

Ron

WXYZCIENCE · « **Reply #50 on:** May 14, 2006, 11:34:50 AM »

= 100K the problem would go away.......I think it ends here Amanda :}

veewee77 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:51:19 AM »

This is great inforation, but, since this is a renewable energy board, and many users may be on dial-up because of power restraints, I think we should limit file sizes.

Especially for that new guy that has already taken the plunge, is on RE completely, don't know what he's doing, and can't afford the power to wait for those long downloads just to read the info.

I am on a broadband connection, but as a network technician for a public school system, (800+ computers in a single T1) I have always tried to encourage users to get that file size down to the lowest you can with suitable quality for the purpose.

Example:

For video editing in some of our classes, the users want to do 30FPS at SVGA resolution making the video file sizes HUGE! then they take that massive file and make a VCD (video CD) out of it to play on a standard television, through a DVD player. The best the TV will do is 512x420 or something like that and their video is huge x huge.

640x480 is plenty for the purpose and the file size on probably 1/10th the size.

A photo at 1024x768, displayed on a 800x600 monitor will look just as good as a 800x600 photo dislayed there, but the 800x600 file will be a LOT smaller in size. Displayed on a 1024x760 monitor, it just won't take as much real estate on the screen.

Fully enjoying this board, and let's just follow the editor's and admin requests to help keep it free an open!

Doug

Daggs · « **Reply #52 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:55:57 AM »

I tried to insert a photo into a dummy post and see how big it was using the 'preview' button. All I got was the HTML code. Am I doing something wrong, or is viewing the pic in preview not feasible?

TomW · « **Reply #53 on:** May 15, 2006, 11:06:37 AM »

Sir Doug;

Yeah, well you really don't expect folks to have to think do you?

Plus the fact that the folks who really need this information are more likely to be rural and / or in underdeveloped countries where high speed internet is not available makes throttling attachment sizes very reasonable. Joe sixpack sitting in downtown Detroit with a massive cable connection may be interested but is unlikely to actually do it.The balance must be achieved where everyone can use the resource without the need for unavailable resources like constant power availability, high speed internet access, etc.

Personally, I would rather see one builder happily using the info than 400 "wannabes" posting dumb questions with a 5 meg bitmap line drawing attached that could be shown as a 60K jpeg.

Curious as it may seem to many this "free" internet just plain ain't so. I know for a fact that the Editors have the full backing of the guy who pays the bills [DanB] so expect some somewhat ruthless enforcement until the numbers of incidents diminishes. DanF is out of town on business so the guidelines page ~~will need to wait to be updated until he gets back sometime next week.~~

Cheers.

TomW

TomW · « **Reply #54 on:** May 15, 2006, 11:10:39 AM »

Down there between "preview" and "post" be sure that either html formatted or auto format is selected. I just keep it set for Auto which you can set in your preferences. Plain text will be just that plain text with no formatting for images or links.

T

Daggs · « **Reply #55 on:** May 15, 2006, 11:17:23 AM »

It's alive!!! it's alive!!

Thanks T for the advice

TomW · « **Reply #56 on:** May 15, 2006, 11:45:39 AM »

Daggs;

Hey glad it helped!

Not sure how to say this but have you looked at your girlfriend on the back seat lately? She seems to have shrunk and grown extra legs and is awful hairy. You both look a bit, shall I say, horny too!

Did you build that machine? What did it start life as?

All in good fun.

Cheers.

TomW

hvirtane · « **Reply #57 on:** May 15, 2006, 12:30:34 PM »

if admin set a file size limit that would be the end of uploading .pdf files and videos to the server.

That is a problem, too. But maybe the server program has got such a command, which would prevent to show oversize files, if included in a text?

- Hannu

willib · « **Reply #58 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:52:05 PM »

not a good idea , wouldnt setting the max upload size to 100k restrict the displaying of video?,

because a file that i recently uploaded was an avi of 800k in size , if you limit this to 100K then no one could see it

http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/2965/Video_2.avi 800K

the link it came from

http://www.fieldlines.com/story/2006/5/14/84437/3687

commanda · « **Reply #59 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:01:38 PM »

This is true.

However, someone adept at Perl (scoop is written in Perl) could modify the upload logic to only limit file size on certain file types, like .bmp, .gif, .jpg.

This of course implies that our users are actually smart enough to leave their files with the correct file extensions, which unfortunately lately has not been the case.

Amanda

wdyasq · « **Reply #60 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:13:05 PM »

Good observation .....

Ron

alcul8r · « **Reply #61 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:30:28 PM »

I have broadband at home and at work. But if I have to scroll over to see each line I hit the back button and go to the next post. I have also had the problem of someone stretching my posts with a pic in a reply. Not appreciated.

Rex

NickCoons · « **Reply #62 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:07:29 PM »

Amanda,

Yep.. the ImageMagick program "mogrify" works well for this, and the PHP code to do it could look something like this:

exec("mogrify -resize 640x480! photo.jpg");

But it would only work if the images were stored on the Fieldlines server, not remotely.

NickCoons · « **Reply #63 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:15:47 PM »

Nope.. the max uploade size only affects HTTP uploads. It doesn't change downloading at all. If you uploaded an 800K video in the past, it would still be viewable in spite of any upload restrictions. But upload restrictions would prevent you from uploading an 800K video in the future.

NickCoons · « **Reply #64 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:29:38 PM »

For those of you on a low-speed connection, like dial-up, one thing that may work is to turn off images. Most browsers will let you modify your settings so that images aren't loaded. This could be a good way to browse through these forums so that images are ignored. If you wanted to view images on a particular page, it would be as simple as temporarily re-enabling loading of images, then refreshing the page. Pages load very fast, even on dial-up, when there are no images.

As someone else recommended, The GIMP is a great open-source, cross-platform (and free) image manipulation program. While it has loads of features similar to Photoshop, modifying the size of an image is fairly straight-forward.

For the maintainers of the site, I have never uploaded images here, so I don't know what interface is used for it, or what it's written in. My recommendation would be to limit the size at the time the image is uploaded in the script that receives the uploaded image. This would allow more flexibility by not necessarily limiting file uploads site-wide.

It looks like the Fieldlines server is running Redhat Linux, so there shouldn't be any problem implementing this using PHP or Perl.

Images could be automatically resized upon upload using mogrify. In fact, even linked-to images could be resized if a script was written to automatically pull the linked image to the local server. The URL could be re-written on-the-fly to display the resized image. It would mean more bandwidth consumption overall for Fieldlines because they'd be displaying images that previously were linked to offsite.

hvirtane · « **Reply #65 on:** May 16, 2006, 01:11:26 AM »

My recommendation would be to limit the size at the time the image is uploaded in the script that receives the uploaded image. This would allow more flexibility by not necessarily limiting file uploads site-wide.

It looks like the Fieldlines server is running Redhat Linux, so there shouldn't be any problem implementing this using PHP or Perl.

I think that would be a good way to go. It would keep the flexibility for even big files as user files and and also limit the size, what is to be shown automatically.

On the other hand it is also an easy way to help the things at home to adjust the browser not to show images automatically. I've used my browser settings a long time that way, when I earlier used a quite slow wireless gprs connection. At least using 'firefox' it is easy to see a desired image, if you'll click the right hand button of the mouse and select the command 'show image', even if the browser ('firefox') is set not to show images automatically.

- Hannu

News:

Author Topic: Photo file and Display Size abuse.. (Read 18006 times)