Attachments

[RichardM]

The folder on the file server where attachments are stored is approaching capacity. As it gets close to the maximum, I'll be forced to either turn off the attachment feature, or start deleting stuff. All of you can help me out by refraining from attaching large picture files. Find an Image Resizer that works for you and use it! I have reduced the maximum allowable size a couple of times in the past year, but that hasn't been enough. A better way to help out would be to host your pictures somewhere else and embed the images using the [img][/img] tags (see How to Post Pics on Big Bend Chat!)

I also used to resize attached images after members had posted them, but that technique no longer works consistently (or sometimes at all) with my current computer setup (HP G60 laptop running M$ Windoze 7 Home Premium 64-bit). For some reason, when I save an attached file to my PC, its file size often goes up dramatically (e.g. 419kb becomes 2118kb), and the resulting file balloons even more after going through the ImageResizer V2.1.1 (2118 becomes 3425kb). I've also seen files change from JPG to GIF. I'm not sure if it's my laptop, the file server/webhost, the BBC software, or a combination. The numbers in the preceding example came from trying to resize the recent Bear picture, if anyone cares to experiment on their setup.

[MilesOfTexas]

One of the easiest ways to reduce the size of an image is to reduce the number of pixels per inch (ppi).  Anything over 72ppi is overkill for web viewing, because 72ppi is what most monitors use.  Most point and shoot cameras have a native ppi of 180 for JPEGs.  Obviously for print you would want a much higher ppi.

For my photos, I shoot in RAW (CR2 for Canon), then when I export them to JPEG using Lightroom I specify 800 pixels for the long side of the image, 72ppi, and a quality of 75%.  This keeps my images down to 250 KB or less.  Considering the original RAW file was 25 MB, this is pretty darn small.  If you are working with smaller original files, the output with those settings will be even smaller.

I haven't used it myself, but this program comes recommended by some photography forums and will let you resize photos similarly: http://www.irfanview.com/

In fact, I will install it tomorrow after work and give it a try out.

[Terlingua50337]

I use Irfanview a lot and it is the default viewer for my system. Resizing is a snap with it. I generally go in and set my largest value (longest side) to 1080. That generally gets CR2 files generated from my Xsi to well below 1Mb (generally around 600k) if its not small enough then I'll use 880 or 660.

[MilesOfTexas]

Well, turns out I was up all night working and had a few minutes to spare before my normal 8-5 starts, so I installed InfranView on my Win7-64 PC and gave it a whirl.  I first exported an image via Lightroom as a 180ppi (dpi is the same thing as ppi) full-size JPEG from a TIFF.  The file was 5.7 MB.  In only a couple of seconds I had a JPEG that was only 37 KB!  I really like this program (but I am not going to trade in my Lightroom for it, haha).

I am also attaching the 37 KB file so you can see for yourself that it looks just fine.

I created a PDF that shows how easy it is step by step, but I can't attach it because it is 636 KB (36 KB over the file size limit), so you can download/view it here: http://milesoftexas.com/pdf/IrfanView-Test.pdf

[badknees]

  I first exported an image via Lightroom as a 180ppi (dpi is the same thing as ppi) full-size JPEG from a TIFF. 

dpi and ppi are not the same.  PPI should be used when referring to image resolution, and the term DPI should be used when referring to printing resolution. Monitors display pixels, and printers produce dots. What really matters is file size.

[MilesOfTexas]

  I first exported an image via Lightroom as a 180ppi (dpi is the same thing as ppi) full-size JPEG from a TIFF. 

dpi and ppi are not the same.  PPI should be used when referring to image resolution, and the term DPI should be used when referring to printing resolution. Monitors display pixels, and printers produce dots. What really matters is file size.

Thanks for correcting me.  Lightroom only gives me ppi as an option, others only give dpi as an option.  I typically use the same values for each, e.g. 300 for print and 72 for web.

I can't fix the PDF regarding that until I get home, so please ignore my error.

[dkerr24]

I use one of the freeware programs for Win7 that allows you to simply right click the JPG and select a resolution size.  Works great for cutting jpg file sizes down to an acceptable amount for web posting.

http://imageresizer.codeplex.com/

It works just like the old PowerToy for Win XP.  It doesn't destroy the original file but creates a new file with the additional name of 'small', 'med', 'large' added to the jpg file name.  It places the shrunk down jpg in the same folder your original was stored in.

Everyone here should be posting all their pictures on a hosting site like photobucket, not storing them on this site directly.

Darin

[RichardM]

I use Irfanview a lot and it is the default viewer for my system. Resizing is a snap with it. I generally go in and set my largest value (longest side) to 1080. That generally gets CR2 files generated from my Xsi to well below 1Mb (generally around 600k) if its not small enough then I'll use 880 or 660.

And yet I used the Windows XP PowerToy Image Resizer (when I still had access to it) to resize a whole bunch of your attachments, typically reducing the file size by 40% or more.

I use one of the freeware programs for Win7 that allows you to simply right click the JPG and select a resolution size.  Works great for cutting jpg file sizes down to an acceptable amount for web posting.

http://imageresizer.codeplex.com/

It works just like the old PowerToy for Win XP.  It doesn't destroy the original file but creates a new file with the additional name of 'small', 'med', 'large' added to the jpg file name.  It places the shrunk down jpg in the same folder your original was stored in.

Unfortunately, the algorithm used by this program is not the same as the one used by the XP PowerToy Image Resizer. I'm finding that a lot of times the codeplex ImageResizer is increasing the file size.

Everyone here should be posting all their pictures on a hosting site like photobucket, not storing them on this site directly.

Amen. That not only keeps our server space manageable, but allows the original poster to retain control of their images.

[dkerr24]

Increased jpg size?  I haven't seen that in my use of the software.  In each case, my original jpg file of 4-6mb ends up being around 75-100k in size.  I use the 1366x768 setting in the software, if that matters. 

Doesn't seem to matter if I shoot the original pictures with a Canon G9 or a Panasonic FH-20, as each camera manufacturer can use a different compression algorithm for processing jpg's.  I know I should use RAW for my G9, but am usually quite happy with the jpg results I get.

[RichardM]

Increased jpg size?  I haven't seen that in my use of the software.  In each case, my original jpg file of 4-6mb ends up being around 75-100k in size.  I use the 1366x768 setting in the software, if that matters. 

Doesn't seem to matter if I shoot the original pictures with a Canon G9 or a Panasonic FH-20, as each camera manufacturer can use a different compression algorithm for processing jpg's.  I know I should use RAW for my G9, but am usually quite happy with the jpg results I get.

I've seen it a lot, although usually with other people's files. It pains me to say it, but Micro$oft's algorithm is superior. If you want to do a test, try clicking on bear 2.jpg and save it to your computer. Check to see if the file size is the same as in the message (419.19kb), then try using your ImageResizer at the same pixel size (1351x963).

I've also seen attached JPG files get saved in PNG format, regardless of what I tell it to save as. In fact, as I was testing my link to the bear picture while composing this message I got this warning:

I got this when trying to open the file in IrfanView instead of saving it. So, it could be that our wonderful webhost is converting some JPG images to PNG, which would explain the jump in file size. Or it could be Windoze 7 and my laptop. Or maybe I'm just slowly losing my mind.

Regardless of the cause, the effect is that I am currently unable to resize most attached image files. Convincing board members to use alternative hosting sites is our best bet at being able to retain the use of the attachment feature.

As to which technique is better, I think I may just give up on conserving file server space until it fills up. That way everyone will be forced to use external photo servers (photobucket, picasa, etc) and I won't have to deal with it anymore. Oh, I'd probably allow non-photo attachments, but even that would require pruning lots of old stuff. Either way it involves more work for me, so if everyone wants to do me a favor, use an external host and post links to images with a maximum width/height of 640. That's the maximum embedded viewing size and anything bigger just slows down page loading for everyone.

And no, this is not a request for anyone to go modify old posts and remove picture attachments (unless your name rhymes with ShaneA ). There are a few large, old attachments I can nuke right before the server reaches its limit. However, if you feel industrious, you could always go through your old posts and upload any attachments to one of the glorious external file hosts, then edit your post to remove the attachment(s) and instead embed the linked image file.

[chisos muse]

Blonde question of the day....if people are quoting with pictures previously posted over and over again......is it taking up more space as well? I see many times here a member will quote with all of material in the quote when they may be only referring to one sentence from it. Also, when this is done, it makes for a scroll fest! 

[dkerr24]

Blonde question of the day....if people are quoting with pictures previously posted over and over again......is it taking up more space as well? I see many times here a member will quote with all of material in the quote when they may be only referring to one sentence from it. Also, when this is done, it makes for a scroll fest! 

LOL... would this 'member' be otherwise known as QuickSilver? 

[trtlrock]

 

Relax QS -- nobody's jumpin' on you...

Having said that, yes, you really do need to learn how not to quote an entire post. As Musey said, it makes it too scroll-a-licious.

If I had quoted your previous post, this is what I would have seen on the screen:

It appears that Quicksilver is under attack. Darin & Muse, what would you have me change, and how to change it? I still do not understand how to isolate part of a "quote"; care to help me? Or do you prefer the critical route? If there are other issues you wish to discuss openly, please do so. I will try to please. Or, if you wish to contact me by PM, you know the drill. I will always listen to "superior" people.
QS

Your quote would have been preceded by this:  quote author=quicksilver link=topic=10199.msg98577#msg98577 date=1289851661
And would have been followed by this:  /quote

Note that there would be brackets around the two bolded examples above, like this:  [xxxxx]

If I wanted to just quote a portion of your post, I would delete all the text in between the quote-brackets except for the pertinent text I wanted to quote.

Like this:

I still do not understand how to isolate part of a "quote"; care to help me?
QS

[Terlingua50337]

Dang QS if I still had a smite button I'da done smote them both at least once, maybe twice, Muse and DKerr that is.... anonymously of course 

[Ay Chihuahua!]

Somebody needs a napee-poo.