Photo file and Display Size abuse..

[Ungrounded Lightning Rod]

Let me second that about slow dialup lines in the country.  I have DSL in the townhouse and can only get dialup (about 22k) at the country house.  (Satellite is cost- and performance-prohibitive for me out there.  As it likely is for many of those who are actually trying to make their own power on-the-cheap with sweat equity.)

Big pix KILL my ability to read the board - out where I'll be when I'm actually MAKING something RE-ish.

[Ungrounded Lightning Rod]

Some of the states in the US - especially in the west - have counties that are larger than MOST European countries.  Typically the big counties are VERY sparsely populated.  You can drive for hours and see nobody - including no open gas stations.  B-(

Wiring such places for broadband internet is prohibitively expensive.  Stringing and maintaining a 50 mile optical fiber costs the same whether it ties two cities of multimillion population or ties a network switch to a single house.  Even if there happens to be a fiber running down the road or railroad right-of-way, hooking up to it is no more an option than getting a power drop from a high-line transmission tower.  You need the equivalent of a substation - at similar cost and number of users serviced affordably - to get hooked up.

Dialup lines in rural areas are partially subsidized by the rates charged the millions of phone users in the cities, so they are generally available and usually affordable.

But they're SLOW.

A voice line has an inherent limit of under 64 kbps - in practice, under 56 kbps - because they're distributed digitally for part of their travel and only digitized at 8,000 8-bit samples per second (with one bit in 8 "stolen" every few samples for other signaling and thus unreliable - and with legal limits on signal strenth prohibiting some bit patterns).  Then they degrade even farther when the final analog wires are long enough that the distributed resistance and capacitance eat too much of the high frequencies - or "loading coils" (installed in long runs to even out the lower frequency response) wipe them off.

[Ungrounded Lightning Rod]

How about hacking the posting software to check the image size at posting and bail out into a continue-posting page with advice on how to shrink it if it's over the limit?

It could be cheated by later substituting a large image for a small one in the file space.

But I think the problem is that posters simply don't realize the filesize implications of their postings.  So this would both fix the problem and put the instructions in the hands of the user exactly/whenever when he needs them.

Without some automatic solution you'll be cursed with the need to periodically post articles like this one.  And a general limit on upload file size will crimp other things.

[Spelljammer]

Agree, Woof.  That is exactly what I do and people really don't need megapixel pictures unless they are planning on zooming in for detail or they are going to print larger than 4x6 pics.  640x480 prints as a 4x6 pic nicely and is perfect for the web.  People using 5 megapixel makes a pic that is about 2500x1900.  You could print out a poster at walmart that would be 25 inches x 19 inches with that.  It also takes a lot of memory in your camera and computer.  And it is so big, that it is hard to send to people.  Let's face it, 90% of the time you could leave your digital camera on the lowest setting and it would be better.

I also found out that all cameras aren't the same.  I have taken 1024x768 pics on my olympus and I've taken 640x480 on my sony cybershot and the sony pics look way better with sharper detail and better color.  And I tested with multiple shots with each camera from the same angle and methodically compaired them.

[Spelljammer]

don't think so.  640x480 will print out to 4x6 inches no problem.  In fact, every 100 pixels can equate to an inch for a printed pic.  

[Spelljammer]

actually google video is free and i have seen 190 MB videos on it.

[NickCoons]

That's personal preference though.  I always print pictures at 300 pixels per inch when I'm being extremely picky about the quality of the prints.

[Jon Miller]

Hello all, anybody on dailup if you can aford it should try onspeed, its worth the pennies.  Loads FL and most websites faster INCLUDING EBAY! which on dailup just sometimes dosnt work.  

it should be a big help to people like myself who have no other option then dailup.

[maker of toys]

another problem with setting the camera for low rez, is sometimes you see a once-in-a-lifetime photo, and only later realize that you had the camera on 'Instamatic' instead of 'Ansel Adams' and wind up crying in your beer about it.

(true story- Recently got a ride in the nose of a B17; realized after landing that my 8 MP camera was still set for 640x480, high compression.  

<insert sound of intense anguish, frustration and embarrassment here>

 NEVER AGAIN. Even a  a full install of photoshop CS is cheap relative to a couple of such missed opportunities.)

 my advice: take a full-rez photo, crop closely, then resize to an "even" power-of-four number of pixels for best compression as a .jpg. then "step on it" by saving with the compression cranked up . . .  a 160x120 thumbnail that is more than 5 kb is WAY TOO BIG. If you have the option, make sure the image is loaded in 1 pass- the cool 'interlaced' format that sharpens up as it loads takes more bandwidth.

(for the johnny-come-latelies to computers:) 160x120, 320x240,  or 640x480 are good numbers to shoot for.

-Dan

[bj]

   Haven't posted any pics, but can sympathize.  My only comment is,

PLEASE do whatever you have to do to keep this alive.  You have

helped a lot of people along the way.

   My thanks

   bj

[olvvlo]

Hi, also guilty just recently with post in storage section! Sorry.

On the Microsoft XP site (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx ) there is a small program that imbeds it's into Xp for seizing pictures.

I don't think re-sizing comes easier than this!

*Download the program (500kb or so)

*Once loaded, Right click on the image.

There will now be the option RESIZE PICTURE

*Select small

A copy of the picture will aspire in the same folder reduced to 640x480.

Hope this is useful.

PS. Presumably the size restriction is per picture rather than the total?

I do hope people keep sending pictures as it brightens up the site and

One picture can say a thousand words!

[Evandream]

Learning to resize pics is something most camera users need to learn. Not just here but I see it everywhere. Most the talk in this post on the subject is taking smaller sized pics for the forum. BUT, remember some of those people may want the pictures for other uses also and then taking smaller pics is not the issue.

Like I have seen some pics here that would be great to print out as 8x10 color glossies, those need to be taken at a higher camera setting to be printed great than what is need for just posting online. So it becomes a mater of resize and scale them down for online posting after taking the pics.

I don't post many pics but I had problems getting them sized as I wanted for some I have uploaded.

 Steve Johns, MLS For Sale By Owners Special Web-Photographer

[s4w2099]

Ms paint win2000 and older dont like JPEG so you can download this small program to resize a batch of pictures. If you are in linux and dont want to resize them all one by one you can use a nice application called 'nconvert'. It will resize a folder full of pictures and convert it from and to any fileformat.

XnView Download Here