Resizing of linked image in new forum

[Swoosh]

I found that the new forum is now resizing the image size of linked image to a prefined limit, which makes viewing the original pic more difficult...

Is it the limitation of the new forum software?

And the reversed "R" in my signiture dosen't work now...

Edited July 3, 2007 by Swoosh

[Hurin]

I found that the new forum is now resizing the image size of linked image to a prefined limit, which makes viewing the original pic more difficult...

Is it the limitation of the new forum software?

And the reversed "R" in my signiture dosen't work now...

I think you're referring to dynamic resizing of the image so that it fits within the browser window and does not distort the rest of the thread. You should just be able to click on it and it will then display in full size.

If I'm mistaken, please point me to an image that isn't behaving properly (as above).

[Swoosh]

Thanks for the quick response

712 X 534 pic shows in its orignal size (posted before migration)

712 X 534 pic with dynamic resizing (posted after migration)

What is the correct resolution to be used if I don't want them be resized?

[Hurin]

I'm confused.

Are we talking about images that are posted via attachments or directly linked images?

None of those directly linked images in those threads look problematic to me. But I do see a couple of attachments that will are appearing in their own window when clicked. . . but the window is tiny and needs to be re-sized by hand. I suspect the latter will be fixed when the attachments are rebuilt (hopefully soon).

[Swoosh]

I'm confused.

Are we talking about images that are posted via attachments or directly linked images?

None of those directly linked images in those threads look problematic to me. But I do see a couple of attachments that will are appearing in their own window when clicked. . . but the window is tiny and needs to be re-sized by hand. I suspect the latter will be fixed when the attachments are rebuilt (hopefully soon).

They are all direclty linked image, I am referring those posted by my id "Swoosh".

Take an example pic that I posted before the migration and now I post it again in below:

You can see now it is dynamic resized, but it is the same image/link I have used before the migration.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Swoosh

[David Hingtgen]

I understand/see what Swoosh is talking about.

Hurin:

Swoosh has uploaded numerous pics of 712x534. Those uploaded on the old board, display full-size as-is, simply embedded in the page. They are plenty small enough to not need to be resized, and aren't.

But, the newer ones, also 712x534, are resized for no apparent reason as attachments instead of being imbedded full-size within the main thread page. They won't cause horizontal scrolling or anything, because the older 712x534's don't. Why are they being resized now and stuck as attachments and require clicking on them to see them full-size, when other, older pics with the exact same dimensions aren't being resized?

Also, resizing seems to be strangely scaled. All of his 712 wide pics are being resized to 512 wide, but my 800 wide pics are being super-shrunk to like 100 pixels. Why the huge difference in "amount of resizing" for pics which start out with similar sizes?

[azrael]

If he's displaying the pics as attachments, then yes, they would be resized. Hot-linking from a external site should be unaffected. The pic on this page looks fine.

[Dante74]

At least you guys can see the pics that Swoosh posts. All I get is a small white square with a little red cross. Using IE7 at work, at home using Firefox they show up just fine.

[Swoosh]

At least you guys can see the pics that Swoosh posts. All I get is a small white square with a little red cross. Using IE7 at work, at home using Firefox they show up just fine.

That could due to firewall setting or filtering software at your workplace... my friend have the same problem in his office.

[Hurin]

Okay, here's the problem and why I'm having trouble understanding. . . they look fine to me. No resizing or anything.

They are appearing full-size for me. No dynamic scaling whatsoever in either thread. . . and no scaling here either.

Maybe it's a cookie thing?

[Hurin]

If he's displaying the pics as attachments, then yes, they would be resized. Hot-linking from a external site should be unaffected. The pic on this page looks fine.

Actually, IPB 2.2+ has scaling of non-attachment images that are so wide that they would break the forum layout. It usually works pretty slick. . . but apparently some people are having trouble seeing them whereas others aren't.

I'd recommend everyone delete their cookies and/or clear their caches. Note the link at the bottom of the Index page: "Delete all cookies set by this board."

Though, using your browser's cookie controls may be preferred since you're actually more interested in deleting cookies set by the old board version.

[Swoosh]

I had clear cookies and temp files in my office PC, home PC and lap top, all of them still showing the resized version... (screen resolution at 1024 X 768 and 1280 x 1024)

I notice that pics only resized after the whole page is loaded.

May be there is some event triggered the dynamic resize are page load completed?

[Hurin]

Yes, apparently the code for dynamic re-sizing of in-post images (not attachments) looks at your desktop resolution to determine if scaling is necessary. I figured it did it by window size but could not get it to start scaling just by shrinking the window.

I just set my resolution to 1024x768 to see if I got scaling and it does indeed scale now.

Having said that. . . I'm not sure I see a problem. They are clearly marked as scaled and there's a clear "click here for full size image" available.

Personally, I much prefer this to those times that people post a huge image and we have to scroll side-to-side for the rest of the thread.

Finally, there is no certain size that you can post that won't cause resizing since what might not cause resizing at 1024x768 might still cause resizing for those running 800x600 (though that's probably pretty rare).

My rule of thumb has always been that I shrink something to about 600w before posting it to forums. But that's just me.

[azrael]

After some testing, the resizing is based on your current monitor resolution. The reason Hurin or myself probably don't see the problem as well is probably due to the fact that we are using monitors running at a higher resolution. I noticed I had the resizing on a few images. Since your pics are greater than or equal to half of your current monitor resolution (713 is larger than 1/2 of 1024 and 1/2 of 1280), the images are resized. I don't mind this since it would eliminate the need to scroll.

My suggestion would be to use an an image hosting site's thumbnail feature to post pics. You can cram more pics in your posts and you can avoid the whole dynamic resizing thingy.

[David Hingtgen]

The thing is, as I've mentioned---swoosh and I are already shrinking them to sizes that eliminate any need for scrolling at 1024x768--yet they're still being resized.

Also, the resizing is "biased". Why are mine being shrunk to like 10% of their original size? They're itty-bitty little micro-thumbnails. While some of Swoosh's retain 95% of their original size. I understand why the board will resize, but why does it shrink mine down so severely? If it's based on monitor resolution, shouldn't all pics be reduced to the same size, regardless of original size?

[azrael]

David, if you have an example of where your pics are being reduced to thumbnail size, let me know and I'll look at it under my laptop's screen or under a different resolution.

[David Hingtgen]

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?s=&a...st&p=496196

My pics are only 800 wide, but they're shrunk to tiny proportions. Also, why did it make a row of 3, and then 2 singles underneath it in a column?

[azrael]

My pics are only 800 wide, but they're shrunk to tiny proportions. Also, why did it make a row of 3, and then 2 singles underneath it in a column?

This is due to the fact that your pics are attachments to your post and not a images from a external site (which use the "img" tag). Attachments are automatically reduced to thumbnails. This is different from Swoosh's concern as he is displaying pics from a external website using the "img" tag and they are dynamically reduced to fit the screen.

Example:

This is a pic from the magazine scans (from some place that is not the forums):

Here's the same one as an attachment (notice "Attached thumbnails" at the bottom):

Anything you send from your computer to the forums is an attachment and is resized to a thumbnail. Images that are on the net somewhere and are displayed on the forums using "img" tags are just dynamically resized to fit the screen.

[David Hingtgen]

Ahhhhhhh.

Still don't like the black borders though, they're as large as the thumbnail itself. It was much cleaner and less obvious on the old board.

Guess I'll have to start using my photobucket account more.

[Swoosh]

After some testing, the resizing is based on your current monitor resolution. The reason Hurin or myself probably don't see the problem as well is probably due to the fact that we are using monitors running at a higher resolution. I noticed I had the resizing on a few images. Since your pics are greater than or equal to half of your current monitor resolution (713 is larger than 1/2 of 1024 and 1/2 of 1280), the images are resized. I don't mind this since it would eliminate the need to scroll.

My suggestion would be to use an an image hosting site's thumbnail feature to post pics. You can cram more pics in your posts and you can avoid the whole dynamic resizing thingy.

Looks like the maximum width of a pic for a 1024 screen is 512...

There are still a lot of blank area that can be utilized before user have to do scrolling, personally, I think clicking into every pic to view the orginals in a new window is less convenience than scrolling, while some pic are better to view in sequence within the same window...

I know user with smaller screen user will still have to click, but 1024 X768 is quite common nowadays, can the limit be increased?

[Hurin]

There is a mis-labeled setting that I found. . .

Automatic Image Resize Percentage

Please enter the percentage to reduce the image to

Though this didn't appear to be helpful based on the description. . . it appears to actually control the threshold at which a (non-attachment) image is dynamically resized. It was set to 50 (%). Which seems to be the reason that anyone at 1024x768 resolution would start seeing images scaling at 512 (width) or higher. Those at 1600x1200 would see scaling at 800w. . . etc.

I've now set it to 85%. Though I haven't tested exhaustively, I did notice that some images that were scaling before are no longer scaling. So it seems to have had the desired effect.

[Hurin]

Okay. . . little test of that setting here. . .

I'm at 1680x1050 desktop.

With the setting in the back-end at 85%. . . if I've guessed at the setting's functionality correctly. . .

85% of 1680 = 1428 pixels. So 1400-wide images shouldn't scale. While 1450-wide images should scale.

The first one should not scale for me.

The second one should.

And that's exactly what I'm seeing.

Of course, unless you're running at 1680x1050 as well, everyone will just have to take my word for this.

So, does 85% sound like a good threshold for this? I'm tempted to go down to 75%.

Edit: Ah. . . now I see why having a high percentage isn't really a good idea. . . at 85%, things that are resized are barely fitting in my browser window and the forum framework while my browser is maximized. So, I'm forced to have the browser maximized to avoid side-to-side scrolling.

So, given this, I'm going to set it to 75%. This will make my test above stop working (both start scaling). So, again, you'll all just have to take my word for it that it worked as expected.

[Hurin]

Here's another way to think of the setting (and this somewhat makes the description make sense). . .

When an image is too big for the user's desktop resolution, it will be resized. The setting above sets the percentage of the screen that the scaled image can occupy. In so doing, it also sets the threshold (because anything over that size is considered a candidate for resizing).

The setting at first appears to be saying that it will chop any image it sees by a given percentage and then display it. But that's not the case. It really could be more clear.

[Hurin]

So, it's now at 75%

People at 1024x768 will be able to see up to 870 pixels of width before scaling starts.

Best,

H

[David Hingtgen]

Seems to work for embedded images, Swoosh's pics are now full-sized on my 1024 screen. Any chance of bigger thumbnails for attachments?

[Swoosh]

So, it's now at 75%

People at 1024x768 will be able to see up to 870 pixels of width before scaling starts.

Best,

H

It works!! Thank you Hurin!!!

[Hurin]

Any chance of bigger thumbnails for attachments?

There is a setting for this. But I think we should be wary of changing it (currently at 100x100) until we get the current attachment regeneration issues figured out. I sent Shawn a PM regarding an issue that may be related.

Also, the thumbnails are doing a pretty good job of representing things at their current size (IMHO). And keep in mind that if we increase the size of the the thumbnails, we're talking about increased storage "expense" for each and every image attachment. . . and there are already five gigabytes of those.

[David Hingtgen]

If we could get everyone at MW to clear out their old, un-needed attachments... I mean, probably 90% of the stuff is no longer needed, and links back to "archived super-threads" at best. Reviews, build-ups, and customs are among the few threads that need to keep all their attachments.

But I think it's an impossible task to try to actually find and delete what's no longer needed.