Images suitable for 4k on NG

[Tristin]

Now that I am settled in with my 4k laptop I can see what others have said about images appearing soft on 4k monitors.  The images I am viewing on NG are nearly all upsampled quite a bit and end up soft, unless I want to view the image as a virtul thumbnail.  So how do we go about this issue?  Would putting "4k" in the title of a thread be sufficient to warn users of the 1-2mb images it contains?  Can NG handle the bandwidth necessary? 

I should add that I do not literally mean images with a long side of 4k pixels, ~5mp would suffice.

[Andrea B.]

Tristin, that is an excellent question. And I have no answer for you right at the moment. 

The 4K monitor thing kind of snuck up on me. I have a Retina screen MacBook Pro, but at maximum rez I'm only at 1920 x 1200. That is way less than your 4000 x 2000. Wow!!

Currently, the Simple Machines forum software limits the filesize of one attachment to 2560kB = 2.56mB. Total combined attachment filesizes in one post are limited to four times that for a maximum = 10.24mB.

The forum software limits the page display size of a file to fit inside a 1000 x 1000 px box. If you right click the image, select View Image and then click the image again, you can see the image larger than 1000 x 1000 px. To see images as large as possible the browser must be fully expanded with no sidebars. I'm not sure how the maximum click-up View Image size is determined.

[EDIT:  I had the page display maximum size incorrectly stated and so edited that.]

[Tristin]

3840x2160 on a 15.6" looks absolutely stunning, though there are still issues with scaling on many programs which is annoying.

On the file limits, good to know.  Of course 4k will eventually be the standard that replaces HD, but how long it takes is another issue.  I don't want to put un-necessary strain on the NG server for the sake of a minority that may very well stay a minority for years to come.  The bandwith warning regarding news on the D5, etc. up top leads me to believe a conservative approach is best until we get an "official" advisory on such large images.

[Andrea B.]

Well, we are stuck with the limits we have (as stated above). So you are not stressing NG by staying within those limits.

It is rather funny that on the one hand we have the 4K monitors beginning to be used but on the other hand so many members are clamoring for a reduced "mobile-friendly" version of this software.

[Tristin]

Huh, was unaware.  My phone runs at 2550x1440.    Display resolutions are really exploding

[Bjørn Rørslett]

If you look at a posted image at its native (uploaded) resolution, softness or upscaling artefacts should not be present. You might be surprised how good quality can be achieved even within the 2.5 MB limit.

We have the current max.size limits to prevent less tech-savvy people of posting their files at full camera resolution. Still, now and then people do this and lower the jpg quality to ridiculously low levels to make the image file size small enough. No wonder such poor attempts come out looking horrible. The proper approach is reducing pixel dimensions, not jpg quality.

[Tristin]

Bjørn, I am aware of the image viewing topic.  My problem is that most images posted are uncomfortably small on 4k, so I enlarge them in browser via (ctrl)+(+) so I do not have to strain my eyes to appreciate the details.  Granted, 15.6" 4k is the cutting edge so I currently represent an extreme minority.

Anyhow, question answered.  2.5mb is easily sufficient.   

[Andrea B.]

Tristin, wow on that cellie display @ 2550 x 1440. I'm stuck back a few gens on a old Samsung Galaxy 4 with 1920 x 1080. Time to upgrade! "-)
Tell me, do you think that your photo edits will change when working on a 4K monitor? Sharpening, for example?

[Tristin]

Perhaps I will start a new thread on the subject in the appropriate forum.  It is a topic unto itself and this is not the right place.