Photo Resize Test

[Andrea B.]

This collage, an obligatory Cat Photo - Reimagined, is 6640 x 5438 pixels. The file size is huge at 21.48 MB. (See remark below). We do not pay for storage size, but we do pay for CPU usage. It takes more CPU to display a large file. So please resize your files nicely. Thank you.

 

The forum software page will display the photo at a hard set maximum of 800 pixels width. If the photo is clicked up twice, then the display will be at original uploaded size.

 

I'm testing to see what various broswers do with this large photo. You can let me know of anything interesting that happens in your phone, tablet, laptop or PC browser.

 

The photo has a white frame around it with no marking edge when seen on our white pages. But the edges will be noticeable when the photo is clicked up.

EDIT: I swapped out the original photo for one with an edge. Somehow after adding the edge, the new file size dropped to 16.31MB. Still huge.

 

[Andrea B.]

First Observation: The hard set 800 px width is erroneous. If my Firefox browser is fully expanded with no sidebars, the cat photo is displayed at about 1000 pixels width on the topic page. Right click on View Image Info and see:

• 6,640px × 5,438px (scaled to 1,021px × 836px)
  

 

If a bookmark or other sidebar is added, then at full expansion we have the following.

• 6,640px × 5,438px (scaled to 809px × 663px)
  

 

OK, something changed in some minor upgrade. It appears that we have a little float going on. No problem.

[Andrea B.]

Second Observation: First click on the photo in a fully expanded Firefox browser with no sidebars gives the following. And whatever do they mean by "Scaled (14%)". Do they mean on the diagonal? (ADDED: Yes, that would seem so. I texted Pythagoras to verify the calculations for me.

• chaisFavoriteBox_20190314frameLayerEdge.jpg (JPEG Image, 6640 × 5438 pixels) - Scaled (14%)
  

The second click on the photo gives a 100% view. This view, of course, is useless for such a large photo!

 

When resizing your photos, therefore, do take into account what the second click will give. Make it meaningful.

[Andy Perrin]

Yes, as I told Bernard, the actual limit (on mine anyway) is like 1100 or even 1200 pixels?

[Andrea B.]

I will make the suggestion to be 800-1200 pixels width. People should understand, I hope, that not every viewer will see the photo with the same squish.

 

Question: Do you want to resize the photo for a good page display or do you want the forum software to do it for you? :D Interestingly, the forum software does not always do such a bad job of resizing.

[Andy Perrin]

I would always rather do it by hand. I didn't realize some people were getting squished to 800px, though, since it does not do that on mine.

[Andrea B.]

On your what?

 

What are you using to view the photos: tablet, phone, monitor?

[Andy Perrin]

IPhone or my 24” display

[dabateman]

For the first time I uploaded the stereo images in my recent post as 1200. Previously I used either 800 or 640 pixels wide, as the defaults in IranFran viewer.

[SteveE]

With Firefox full screen, the cat collage is 1440 pixels wide. I cannot say how high it is, because I cannot get its full height on the screen at once to be able to measure it. With IE, it is the same.

 

OS: Windows 7 Enterprise with Service Pack 1

Display: 1920x1080 with the Windows taskbar at the bottom

Firefox: 66.0.4 64 bit

IE: 11.0.9660.19326

 

Steve

[ulf]

With Chrome in full screen mode I can make the image fit the full 30" monitor's height 1600px.

 

Then I can also zoom in to details of the image and scroll around to see details like this:

[Andrea B.]

Thanks for the viewing reports.

 

Everyone uses different viewing screens - phone, laptop, tablet, big pc monitor. So a hard set of a page display size might be unnecessarily restrictive. I will leave that alone, for now anyway, and let the poster decide. I do hope every poster realizes that not everyone will see their photo the same way. :)

 

As for a limit on upload width, I think that might still be a possibility. It is a bit of a drain on CPU to pull large files for display. And almost no one can view well a doubly-clicked file which is 6000 - 8000 pixels wide. If a poster wants to display unresized details, then an unresized crop or screen shot of a portion of the photo is the best way to go.

 

But what upload width limit should I set for the double clicked view of the photo? I'm thinking something between 1800-2400 pixels as a maximum dimension?

 

Any comments on this are welcome.

[ulf]

I think 2400 px would be nice for scenic images, but with a sharp remainder to use it sparingly to not waste storage space.

[Andrea B.]

I'll set it at 2400 MP width max.

 

Storage space, per se, is not an issue. We pay for CPU usage. It takes more server CPU to serve up a larger photo. This is why I should put some restriction in place.