Forum suggestions

[enry]

@sm1ke please give it a go now for very very large images, I think it might be better.

 

[Antoine]

Yup, we've both now successfully uploaded your test image...Large images (within the current limits) shouldn't cause any further issues...I hope!

 

[Antoine]

Checking in here... @sm1ke when you get a chance, please give it a try, it would be great to know if it's indeed working for you now, thanks!

 

[sm1ke]

Looks like it's working now! Awesome, thanks guys!

 

[N7turbo]

It worked! Nice! So @sm1ke it appears you do not need to downsize your large images before attaching them. The new max dimensions for uploads should be 12K by 12K. After uploading, the system will automatically downsize it to the current limit 1280 x 1280 (or less) in addition to further optimizations...This is all done to speed up image loading while still maintaining decent size and quality.

Hope you don't have images larger than 12K by 12K lol...That said, we should be able to raise the limit.

Can we increase this beyond 1280? I'm looking at the forums on a 3840x2160 (4k) monitor and the images are pretty small, occupying a square in the middle of the screen. At a minimum, I think at least matching the size of the typical smartphone screen makes sense. So 2400 on the long side, which would put 3:2 images at 2400x1600.

I always crop unnecessary area off the sides to be as efficient as possible and downsize my pictures to 50-75% of their original for faster loading.

Actually, if the concern is load times, then a file size limit makes more sense than an image dimension limit. You could say 2 MB or so which covers most cases. My resized images always end up under 2 MB which is about a 50% reduction from their originals and display as intended. That would be much better than an image size limit. Files larger than this would be downsized to meet it.

 

[Antoine]

Can we increase this beyond 1280? I'm looking at the forums on a 3840x2160 (4k) monitor and the images are pretty small, occupying a square in the middle of the screen. At a minimum, I think at least matching the size of the typical smartphone screen makes sense. So 2400 on the long side, which would put 3:2 images at 2400x1600.

I always crop unnecessary area off the sides to be as efficient as possible and downsize my pictures to 50-75% of their original for faster loading.

Actually, if the concern is load times, then a file size limit makes more sense than an image dimension limit. You could say 2 MB or so which covers most cases. My resized images always end up under 2 MB which is about a 50% reduction from their originals and display as intended. That would be much better than an image size limit. Files larger than this would be downsized to meet it.

Appreciate the feedback...Load times are a major concern as well as the ability to upload without having to resize. The current setup has been in use probably since my post above 2 years ago and it works well...Regarding the file size limit, the larger the better so that people are less likely to need to resize. Once they upload, we have an addon that optimizes the image and then the main system limits the dimensions to 1280 by 1280.

As for the dimensions..They're restricted to 1280 by 1280 for several reasons...Load times, thread width/post flow and removal of additional image data (automatically removed when resized).

I use two monitors (4k and 5k) and I view the site zoomed in a bit...I would recommend trying that if you haven't already...Note though that most of our traffic is via mobile.

All that said, a major update to the system we use has been released and it has its own image optimization system built in (unlike the 3rd-party addon we're currently using)...We might switch to that builtin system after updating but we're not sure yet...I will keep your feedback in mind though, thanks!

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

- Any way to add more options to “Like’s”? IE: something related to Helpful, Love, Handclaps… keep it postive

- Users viewing a thread without divulging the users

 

[N7turbo]

Appreciate the feedback...Load times are a major concern as well as the ability to upload without having to resize. The current setup has been in use probably since my post above 2 years ago and it works well...Regarding the file size limit, the larger the better so that people are less likely to need to resize. Once they upload, we have an addon that optimizes the image and then the main system limits the dimensions to 1280 by 1280.

As for the dimensions..They're restricted to 1280 by 1280 for several reasons...Load times, thread width/post flow and removal of additional image data (automatically removed when resized).

I use two monitors (4k and 5k) and I view the site zoomed in a bit...I would recommend trying that if you haven't already...Note though that most of our traffic is via mobile.

All that said, a major update to the system we use has been released and it has its own image optimization system built in (unlike the 3rd-party addon we're currently using)...We might switch to that builtin system after updating but we're not sure yet...I will keep your feedback in mind though, thanks!

Yeah, I mean the software could accept any file size, but size it down until it's under 2 MB, rather than going by dimensions. If an image can be made to fit within 2 MB at 3000 pixels, great! Best of both worlds (of course you'd want an upper limit on the allowable compression, because a 3000 pixel image that's compressed to heck looks like, well...heck). I'm just speaking ideally; I don't know what limitations it has.

 

[Antoine]

- Any way to add more options to “Like’s”? IE: something related to Helpful, Love, Handclaps… keep it postive

- Users viewing a thread without divulging the users

I believe so, I did add one in the past but it was not easy (and I don't remember how I did it lol)...This major update I've mentioned apparently offers a much easier way to manage the reactions so I'll be happy to revisit this after we update (and yes let's keep it positive for sure).

As for realtime thread stats...Unfortunately that option is currently not available with the system we use...Perhaps in a future update..?

Yeah, I mean the software could accept any file size, but size it down until it's under 2 MB, rather than going by dimensions. If an image can be made to fit within 2 MB at 3000 pixels, great! Best of both worlds (of course you'd want an upper limit on the allowable compression, because a 3000 pixel image that's compressed to heck looks like, well...heck). I'm just speaking ideally; I don't know what limitations it has.

The system only offers the ability to reduce size (after upload) by dimension. If we limit upload size then everyone will experience issues like sm1ke did above...Also, the priority is to reduce the file size, lower the better...Currently it appears we're around a few hundred KB per pic on the high end (limiting dimensions to 1280x1280). 2 MB would be way too high.

Note we use XenForo and their own forums appear to have images limited to 1280 as well and they know a thing or two about optimal settings (with their own software). They're also on the latest version which has that builtin image optimizer I mentioned previously...That optimizer changes images into a super optimized file type called webp and it looks like images are reduced down to around 100 KB or less per pic (with a limit of 1280x1280).

As mentioned, the priority is reducing file size...Of course we also want to maintain sufficient size and quality...What we have now does a solid job of achieving that...That said, after we update I will look into this again and see if any adjustments can be made without sacrificing file size.

 

[Antoine]

@Kedis82ZE8 Added new reactions!

@sm1ke Do you still have the original pic above of your CX-9? If so, could you post it again here, I'd like to see how well the new builtin attachment optimizer works with that same pic. The previous optimizer reduced it down to 176 KB with the current limits set.

 

[sm1ke]

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find that exact picture anymore. I do have a couple of more recent large pictures that are about 3mb in size and 4000x3000 in resolution. I'll post them here.

 

[sm1ke]

Ok, drag+drop upload was easy and quick, much smoother than before. Files uploaded are now converted to .webp files. When I save the uploaded file as a .jpeg, and view the image details, the size is now around 200 KB and the resolution is now 1280x960.

 

[Antoine]

Much appreciated @sm1ke! Thanks for sharing your upload experience, I noticed the same thing and it definitely put a smile on my face.

Thanks as well for the pic details, from 3mb to 200 KB at 1280 is great...Under 100 KB would be even better but this is definitely a big step in the right direction.

Ps...Nice tools! Great Made in Japan brands there...KTC is a good one too!

 

[sm1ke]

Ps...Nice tools! Great Made in Japan brands there...KTC is a good one too!

Haha thanks! I knew you'd appreciate them. Ordered them off amazon.co.jp a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Antoine]

@Kedis82ZE8 Added new reactions!

Added one more..."Welcome!"