Testing Image Attachment

[Andrea B.]

This attached image was 1200 pix wide before the forum software resize.
It has been resized to a really weird 617 pix wide.

[Andrea B.]

This linked image was 1200 pix wide before the forum software resize.
This image was viewable when I first linked it but is now gone.

BEFORE IMAGE

AFTER IMAGE

[Andrea B.]

If you are on Site5 then image size doesn't matter. You are paying for CPU time not server space.

Now I can see the linked image in the preceding post again. Weird.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Andrea, you are correct about Site5 our hosting provider allowing - in principle - near unlimited size of attachments.

However that being said, there *are* ramifications of allowing unlimited attachment size. If everybody should post 100 MB TIFs, server load *would* increase by leaps and bounds, and big images are a breeze to steal and use illegally later. Copyright will be severely threatened.

I think a balance point should be struck and most images (as jpg) might be seen pefectly on web pages and provide a lot of detail within a limit of 1 or 2 MB. I'm going to increase the upper limit for attachments to say 2 or 4 MB if/when the inline issue is sorted.

[Andrea B.]

Testing an image upload to see if dimension restrictions have propagated yet.
This image is 983 x 1000px.

[Andrea B.]

NO, they have not. Back to the drawing board.

[Andrea B.]

OK, GOT IT !!
If the browser is sufficiently expanded, a maximum 1000 x 1000 pixel image can now be viewed.
This might mean removing a bookmark sidebar.

[Andrea B.]

However, 1000 x 1000 pixels is too big for the page viewing size. The image will have to be scrolled if the browser is not expanded. This will happen too many times for most folks.
So I think we want to limit viewing size of the image on the page to 800 x 800 pixels.
Then if someone wants to see the larger version they could click up???

[Andrea B.]

OK, new question. I don't see a mechanism for clicking up a foto to a larger viewing size?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Me thinks using percentage of frame is better. People view web sites on a wide variety of devices.

Set say 95% of the frame as max. width and 70-75% for height. Today's überwide monitors is a royal pain for most tasks except video viewing anyway.

If the size isn't sufficient, righht-click to bring up the original.

[Andrea B.]

So there's no click-up cursor. Foo. Right-click and hightlight is so slow.

OK, I will continue to play with the on-page display sizing and try out some percentages as you have suggested.
If only we knew the actual size of the area we had to work with. Sigh. I can guess pretty much, but still.

TTYL. 
(these are weird smilies)

[Frank Fremerey]

I love the blue flower Aster?

The picture scrolls in its frame on my phone

[Andrea B.]

The blue flower is a UV Aster. "-)

**********

I have discovered that using a % size setting causes the smallest the foto will be displayed on my laptop browser to be approximately within a 500 px square. The largest it will be displayed depends on the expandability of the browser.
OK, this is looking good.

[Andrea B.]

Testing a longer than wide image to see how the sizing is affected.
This image is 1000 px tall and 894 px wide.

[Andrea B.]

1000 x 1000 px square image