my pics seems to always come out 350kb or larger.. any way to get them to upload? other than cropping the hell outta them.. Keep It Green and Stay Safe.. HE
-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Pics only 150kb or less
- Thread starter hieagle420
- Start date
420oclock
Member
35mm film cameras took pictures about the size of your thumb. My tiny 3MP digicam takes pictures over two feet wide. I don't know what you're using but, it's possible your pics are 3-4-5 feet wide or larger.
Keep pixel res to 800x600 or less and you shouldn't have too many problems. I realize most don't have Photoshop and ImageReady, but these can keep an 800x600 shot to around 75K.
Keep pixel res to 800x600 or less and you shouldn't have too many problems. I realize most don't have Photoshop and ImageReady, but these can keep an 800x600 shot to around 75K.
Thanks Skip..
Sativa Soul
Member
Well I've been trying to upload my pics in the forum albums but it allways says image file size exceeded. I thought they resized automatically but now they don't seem to do that anymore.
Fast_Pine
Member
I tend to upload at 3.5mb, thats 7.5 mp. The site resizes them automatically. The results on those are fairly good. The 3d pics I do tend to be closer to 6mb, and the site resizing chews them up beyond usability. For them I have to resize them down to around 750x500 to keep the pic quality needed to even see them.
Though 7.5mp will only print out to around 12x9 but a 35mm film camera will get you much bigger prints. I have no idea what you're talking about freezerboy.
Though 7.5mp will only print out to around 12x9 but a 35mm film camera will get you much bigger prints. I have no idea what you're talking about freezerboy.
Sativa Soul
Member
the site still doesn't resize my pics, even if they're 160kb. i have to resize them manually one by one which takes a lot of time.
i don't get it why it doesn't work when everybody says it does resize them automatically
i don't get it why it doesn't work when everybody says it does resize them automatically
The picture a camera takes and the image a printer prints are different things. The picture a 35mm camera takes, aka the negative, is a tiny little thing about the size of your thumb. It's prints are greatly enlarged.
Digicam prints are greatly reduced. The size of a standard jpeg with my 3 MP is over two feet wide. A HQ TIFF is just shy of four feet wide. I wouldn't be surprised if your shots are in the 5-6 foot range. Because shots are at 72 dpi and quality prints start around 300 dpi, low quality prints take a 4x reduction. Quality prints are reduced even more.
Now we know why JJ is begging us to clean out our galleries. 3.5 MB? I can get that down to less than 30k.
I'm cropping then re-sizing all my images in Photoshop and saving for web at 72dpi..appx. 560 x 860, most are around 120kb and that seams to be fine, fast, for uploading, as for viewing...no one has ever complained. Once in awhile one shows up that says it was re-sized but not often now. DD
Last edited:
Hey FreezerBoy, any chance of an explanation here?
An old 35mm film took photos at, well 35mm, that's the measurement of the negative. Modern digicams have various ccd chip sizes and cmos chip sizes. Due to the fact that film uses optical light, and digitals use dots of info, when you blow a film image up, you get a constant increase in size. If you blow a digital image up you get blocks where new digital dots are inserted by software programs. Or you get dots with empty space inbetween them. So when I talked about max enlargements I was talking about the size that the print still looks acceptable. When comparing them in this practical way, I still believe that film images will produce larger prints than digital ones.
Also, although I do upload at 3.5 mb a pic, it isnt stored or available to download to anyone at 3.5mb, it is auto converted to the same size as everyones pics. So really I'm not hogging storage space or bandwidth.
I think so too but, that wasn't the discussion. I was referring to most people having no idea of how enormous digi cam images are. Compared to 35 mm, it's a postage stamp vs a bath towel. Few things chew up computer space faster than graphics and few pictures here need 150k.
Red=3MP digicam (44 inches x 32inches) . Green=35mm. Yellow = 800x600
Last edited:
bandwith?
bandwith?
bandwith?
I'm a little confused here and maybe Skip could chime back in. If we are uploading large 3MB. images does it not take quite a bit of extra bandwith for the server to accept these, process them, then re-size them? Friends I'll send Skip a PM to bring his attention to this..no disrespect GMT..DD
Yes, it does cost bandwidth and slow the server the bigger the image upload. I'd say anything up to 4mb is acceptable to upload, but bigger than that, and you might as well resize it first.
150k is the limit for image storage for one pic for most ppl, some groups like site supporters get up to 250k per image, although it's hardly necessary.
150k is the limit for image storage for one pic for most ppl, some groups like site supporters get up to 250k per image, although it's hardly necessary.
Sorry I'm clearly missing something here.
If you aren't talking about the size of the capture device, and you aren't talking about the display size, then when you say digital images are enourmous compared to film images, what are you talking about?
Although yes in absolute terms, uploading a 3.5mb file does take up more bandwidth than uploading a 150kb file, the cost to bandwidth for that individual upload is miniscule compared to the cost of bandwidth for every user downloading a small picture in anyone's signature, or the practice that is common of repeating someone else's post including all the pictures included within it. The main tax on downloads is clearly not what people upload but what people download from the site. Downloads don't only take place once, or even once per user, but when you tag a thread you vissit it on every update, and therefore repeatedly downloading the same images per user. I'm very happy to be able to upload at whatever the natural data size is (max for a totally uncropped image being 3.5mb for me). I don't really get file sizes to be honest. I used to be up on these things, but technology has moved quicker than I could keep upwith and how a photo contains 3.5mb of info versus a 45min episode of stargate at HD quality, which only takes 10 times that info is bizare to me. But having played with image reduction, it is so time consuming (and I find costly to image quality) that it would make uploading images a real chore. I do try to keep my images of a fair standard, and try to clean out my galleries regularly, though the site now penalises people for cleaning out their galleries by taking user points away from them. Perhaps a little rethink on awarding points for any pictures contained in galleries as thats not an incentive to keep pics ontrack for example. Or removing pics from quotes so just the url shows up, ( I have no idea if that's even possible). I'm just pointing out that it is the downloads that take up the bandwidth, and uploads aren't really going to be registering in terms of percentages of costs.
If you aren't talking about the size of the capture device, and you aren't talking about the display size, then when you say digital images are enourmous compared to film images, what are you talking about?
Although yes in absolute terms, uploading a 3.5mb file does take up more bandwidth than uploading a 150kb file, the cost to bandwidth for that individual upload is miniscule compared to the cost of bandwidth for every user downloading a small picture in anyone's signature, or the practice that is common of repeating someone else's post including all the pictures included within it. The main tax on downloads is clearly not what people upload but what people download from the site. Downloads don't only take place once, or even once per user, but when you tag a thread you vissit it on every update, and therefore repeatedly downloading the same images per user. I'm very happy to be able to upload at whatever the natural data size is (max for a totally uncropped image being 3.5mb for me). I don't really get file sizes to be honest. I used to be up on these things, but technology has moved quicker than I could keep upwith and how a photo contains 3.5mb of info versus a 45min episode of stargate at HD quality, which only takes 10 times that info is bizare to me. But having played with image reduction, it is so time consuming (and I find costly to image quality) that it would make uploading images a real chore. I do try to keep my images of a fair standard, and try to clean out my galleries regularly, though the site now penalises people for cleaning out their galleries by taking user points away from them. Perhaps a little rethink on awarding points for any pictures contained in galleries as thats not an incentive to keep pics ontrack for example. Or removing pics from quotes so just the url shows up, ( I have no idea if that's even possible). I'm just pointing out that it is the downloads that take up the bandwidth, and uploads aren't really going to be registering in terms of percentages of costs.
For the fourth time, I'm talking about the dimension of the image captured by the camera. The image captured by a 35 mm is what most people think of and is approx 1 3/8 inches wide (green). The image captured by a tiny 3MP Digicam is 4 feet wide or larger (red). There's no reason or excuse to upload a photo 4 feet wide.
If you can't understand the illustration, simply reduce your photos dimensions to 800x600 (yellow) and Save For Web. This will produce a picture of useable dimensions at a file size that won't unduly burden the servers.
If you can't understand the illustration, simply reduce your photos dimensions to 800x600 (yellow) and Save For Web. This will produce a picture of useable dimensions at a file size that won't unduly burden the servers.
