New image size code in place

Pekka · 8th of January 2004 (Thu)

I did some serious hacking into phpbb (which is btw programmed in very unopen 70's manner

)

Ok, now the image thing goes like this:

If your image goes wider or higher than 800 pixels, it is reduced to 800 high or wide. Link to original is provided.
If your image is smaller than 800, or exactly 800, it is untouched. Mouseover shows image URL.
If image size of your post can not be retrieved, size is fixed to 500 wide. Link to original is provided.

This police change applies immediately to all images posted on this forum.

THIS WILL SLOW DOWN POSTS CONTAINING IMAGES. How much depends solely on servers the images are coming from.

Under each image there small info text what was done by the forum. I also changed some table code that excessive wide posts do not widen the whole page.

Image sizing means image DISPLAY is forced to certain size, it does NOT mean image is resampled.

DISCLAIMER: IF THIS FEATURE PROVES TO BE EXCESSIVE STRESS TO THIS SERVER IT WILL BE REMOVED.

timmyquest · 8th of January 2004 (Thu)

Perfect, i think that a picture does not need to be much bigger then 800 pixles anyways

msvadi · 8th of January 2004 (Thu)

Excellent!

CyberDyneSystems · 8th of January 2004 (Thu)

That sounds like a brilliant plan! 8)

Ikinaa · 9th of January 2004 (Fri)

Hi Pekka,

let's see if I get it right...
Your server retrieves info about the picture from the server where it's located but not the picture itself.
So you see if the picture is bigger than allowed and then the picture is resized (by the browser, style attribute 'small' if i'm correct)
The picture isn't resampled, because you don't retrieve it.
The client retrieves the whole picture (even if it's 3 MB in size), resizes it for viewing with a link to view it in a whole.

If it's so, I don't see the sense of it...
The loading time won't reduce but increase because of the processing you do, the user will have to click twice to see the picture in original
So what's the gain?

PS : correct me if I'm wrong...

slejhamer · 9th of January 2004 (Fri)

Don't care much about the image size.

Hate the side effect.

But I guess if people want to display more than one pic in a thread, they can do it in multiple posts rather than all at once. A minor inconvenience.

Pekka · 9th of January 2004 (Fri)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikinaa

Hi Pekka,

let's see if I get it right...
Your server retrieves info about the picture from the server where it's located but not the picture itself.
So you see if the picture is bigger than allowed and then the picture is resized (by the browser, style attribute 'small' if i'm correct)
The picture isn't resampled, because you don't retrieve it.
The client retrieves the whole picture (even if it's 3 MB in size), resizes it for viewing with a link to view it in a whole.

If it's so, I don't see the sense of it...
The loading time won't reduce but increase because of the processing you do, the user will have to click twice to see the picture in original
So what's the gain?

PS : correct me if I'm wrong...

To download it to my server and actually resize it is also quite possible to do, but the point is not to limit image size in kilobytes. The point is that it is nearly impossible to read messages and actually view (on most common monitor sizes) images when you get six 3000 pixels wide images on one message - even if browsers claim to do image scaling they do not do it when image is inside a table.

Posters should take care that images are sensible in download size.

Pekka · 9th of January 2004 (Fri)

Quote:

Originally Posted by slejhamer

Don't care much about the image size.

Hate the side effect.

But I guess if people want to display more than one pic in a thread, they can do it in multiple posts rather than all at once. A minor inconvenience.

Side effect is now fixed. All images are displayed.

sdommin · 9th of January 2004 (Fri)

Excellent job, Pekka. Thanks for your hard work.

slejhamer · 9th of January 2004 (Fri)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pekka

Side effect is now fixed. All images are displayed.

Excellent, thanks Pekka! Good work!

Anonymous · 9th of January 2004 (Fri)

JUST SAYING THANK YOU PEKKA

MARIE

Vegas Poboy · 16th of February 2004 (Mon)

Thanks for your dedication & hard work.

manncer · 8th of March 2004 (Mon)

Wow! Fantastic...

manncer

timmyquest · 9th of March 2004 (Tue)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pekka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikinaa

Hi Pekka,

let's see if I get it right...
Your server retrieves info about the picture from the server where it's located but not the picture itself.
So you see if the picture is bigger than allowed and then the picture is resized (by the browser, style attribute 'small' if i'm correct)
The picture isn't resampled, because you don't retrieve it.
The client retrieves the whole picture (even if it's 3 MB in size), resizes it for viewing with a link to view it in a whole.

If it's so, I don't see the sense of it...
The loading time won't reduce but increase because of the processing you do, the user will have to click twice to see the picture in original
So what's the gain?

PS : correct me if I'm wrong...

To download it to my server and actually resize it is also quite possible to do, but the point is not to limit image size in kilobytes. The point is that it is nearly impossible to read messages and actually view (on most common monitor sizes) images when you get six 3000 pixels wide images on one message - even if browsers claim to do image scaling they do not do it when image is inside a table.

Posters should take care that images are sensible in download size.

I didnt read this thread since my original post. With what you say here in mind. There is a hack out there for phpbb forums that fixes this problem. Let me get you an example.

http://www.sttr2.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?p=77978#77978

If you want i'll ask my friend (who runs that board) where she got it.

angst911 · 6th of May 2004 (Thu)

now just publish the code........

View Poll Results: Is this solution ok?
Excellent, well done!	42	67.74%
It's ok, I can live with it	7	11.29%
I have no opinion, do as you please	5	8.06%
I hate it, give me full freedom to post any size I want	8	12.90%
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll

8th of January 2004 (Thu)	#1
Pekka El General Moderator Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Hellsinki, Finland Posts: 14,078 IMAGE EDITING OK	New image size code in place I did some serious hacking into phpbb (which is btw programmed in very unopen 70's manner ) Ok, now the image thing goes like this: If your image goes wider or higher than 800 pixels, it is reduced to 800 high or wide. Link to original is provided. If your image is smaller than 800, or exactly 800, it is untouched. Mouseover shows image URL. If image size of your post can not be retrieved, size is fixed to 500 wide. Link to original is provided. This police change applies immediately to all images posted on this forum. THIS WILL SLOW DOWN POSTS CONTAINING IMAGES. How much depends solely on servers the images are coming from. Under each image there small info text what was done by the forum. I also changed some table code that excessive wide posts do not widen the whole page. Image sizing means image DISPLAY is forced to certain size, it does NOT mean image is resampled. DISCLAIMER: IF THIS FEATURE PROVES TO BE EXCESSIVE STRESS TO THIS SERVER IT WILL BE REMOVED. __________________ This signature signifies my significance significantly Photo Gallery ----------------------------

8th of January 2004 (Thu)	#4
CyberDyneSystems Wait, all that time and all I get is "Cream of the Damn Crop" ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Providence RI Posts: 37,424 IMAGE EDITING OK	That sounds like a brilliant plan! 8) __________________ GEAR LIST CDS' HOT LINKS My POTN Share Threads Jake Hegnauer Photography

9th of January 2004 (Fri)	#9
sdommin Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 1,206	Perfect!! Excellent job, Pekka. Thanks for your hard work. __________________ Scott http://www.pbase.com/sdommin/favorites

16th of February 2004 (Mon)	#12
Vegas Poboy Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 950	Thanks for your dedication & hard work. __________________ $$$ in Canon Gear & Lighting Equipment

8th of January 2004 (Thu)	#2
timmyquest User is banned from forums Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Outside of Chicago Posts: 4,178	Perfect, i think that a picture does not need to be much bigger then 800 pixles anyways

8th of January 2004 (Thu)	#3
msvadi Goldmember Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,974	Excellent!

9th of January 2004 (Fri)	#5
Ikinaa Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Luxembourg Posts: 1,518	Hi Pekka, let's see if I get it right... Your server retrieves info about the picture from the server where it's located but not the picture itself. So you see if the picture is bigger than allowed and then the picture is resized (by the browser, style attribute 'small' if i'm correct) The picture isn't resampled, because you don't retrieve it. The client retrieves the whole picture (even if it's 3 MB in size), resizes it for viewing with a link to view it in a whole. If it's so, I don't see the sense of it... The loading time won't reduce but increase because of the processing you do, the user will have to click twice to see the picture in original So what's the gain? PS : correct me if I'm wrong...

9th of January 2004 (Fri)	#6
slejhamer Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,758	Don't care much about the image size. Hate the side effect. But I guess if people want to display more than one pic in a thread, they can do it in multiple posts rather than all at once. A minor inconvenience.

9th of January 2004 (Fri)	#11
Anonymous Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 63	JUST SAYING THANK YOU PEKKA MARIE

8th of March 2004 (Mon)	#13
manncer Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 109	Wow! Fantastic... manncer

6th of May 2004 (Thu)	#15
angst911 Junior Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 22	now just publish the code........

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Image Size vs File Size vs Pixel Dimensions vs Saved Size	Banbert	Weddings and Other Family Events	5	3rd of August 2007 (Fri) 08:23
BB code size value is too big. Huh?	FotOz	Forum Talk	9	16th of May 2007 (Wed) 20:21
Vewfinder image size vs actual pic size?	muscleflex	Canon EOS Digital Cameras	10	20th of June 2005 (Mon) 05:34