Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi folks,

Sorry to moan but would it be at all possible to consider those of us who don't have hyper-fast internet connections when posting multiple large image files in a thread please?

I just clicked on one of the threads and my computer locked up solid as it tried to load many huge files <_< I mean these images were massive :blink:

I agree that it's great to be able to see mega detail at times but perhaps a warning on the title of the thread could allow folks like me with a mediocre internet speed to avoid these intensive threads :wasntme:

I know the software resizes the pictures to appear at 700pixels wide but it downloads them first before it adjusts them. This can result in computer freeze of the highest magnitude and really lessens the whole ARC browsing experience. :(

Thanks for your consideration,

Cheers.

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Images don't lock up your computer regardless of their size.

It is most likely the processor in your computer is outdated, and it can't handle all those images with high quality loading up at the same time.

My internet is very very fast, but my current computer is old, and I get lockups too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup....black screen.....green text.....and that was cutting edge technology.....we were the envy of everyone on the block.....but tell that to kids these days and they won't believe you. :lol:

There's a Monty Python skit somewhere in this thread.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, when quoting previous posts that contain 34 images, it is NOT necessary to include all the image tags. Spend five seconds and delete them so we don't get pages and pages of the same images in multiple posts. It's just not that difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, when quoting previous posts that contain 34 images, it is NOT necessary to include all the image tags. Spend five seconds and delete them so we don't get pages and pages of the same images in multiple posts. It's just not that difficult.

Maybe people like screwing with you Jennings. :rofl:

Seriously though....I do agree with the sentiments of the OP and Jennings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, when quoting previous posts that contain 34 images, it is NOT necessary to include all the image tags. Spend five seconds and delete them so we don't get pages and pages of the same images in multiple posts. It's just not that difficult.

Agreed. Gets erratating to see aguy post a bunch pics of his build then have the next 3 people quote it so all the pics keep showing on all 3 replies, and the replies are "nice work" or "good job".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, when quoting previous posts that contain 34 images, it is NOT necessary to include all the image tags. Spend five seconds and delete them so we don't get pages and pages of the same images in multiple posts. It's just not that difficult.

Agreed. Gets erratating to see aguy post a bunch pics of his build then have the next 3 people quote it so all the pics keep showing on all 3 replies, and the replies are "nice work" or "good job".

Exactly, allot of this happens when the poster hits the "Reply" button within the comment, instead of going to the bottom of the page and using the "Add Reply" button ,maybe the "Reply" button can be disabled leaving only the "Quote Button".

And whats up with the extremely large Banners??? I've commented to a few members who's Banner filled my screen top to bottom.

A few Group Build Banners are exceeding the minimum, The Escort Service banner measures 397 X 317.....

Curt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup....black screen.....green text.....and that was cutting edge technology.....we were the envy of everyone on the block.....but tell that to kids these days and they won't believe you. :lol:

There's a Monty Python skit somewhere in this thread.....

:D, Yer, when Ah were yoong, we were so poor, used to 'ave to live in't shoebox. 'ud to get oop ut quarter to six in't mornin', go and lick road clean fer breakfast. Yer tell that to yoong people these days and they don't believe yer. Or words similar to those.

:cheers:,

Ross.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it makes me feel a little better that I'm not the only one so thanks guys.

Images don't lock up your computer regardless of their size.

It is most likely the processor in your computer is outdated, and it can't handle all those images with high quality loading up at the same time.

My internet is very very fast, but my current computer is old, and I get lockups too.

You could very well be right Nineoniner but the end result is the same. :(

If the images were re-sized to a smaller file size before upload then my internet connection or outdated processor could cope better and I'd be able to enjoy ARC more.

(It would also free up bandwidth for this board and the posting member.)

Cheers,

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Wege, I hear what you're saying.

I guess everyone pays for their image hosting so they are n't constrained by upload limits but I have a free PB account and although they say it's unlimited, they do say that you should be sensible.

With the image dimensions that you outline, what would you say would be the minimum file size that you'd need to give a passable resolution? 100k? 250k? 1Mb? Just curious to see what folk think is a sensible file size for an image.

I tend to re-size my images down to 100kb using Fookes "Easy thumbnailer". I began doing this after another member explained that the images I was using locked up his computer. I did n't notice any particular drop in quality on my monitor.

I'm fully aware that more and more folk are treating themselves to larger, HD monitors. Since I don't have such a device I'm genuinely curious to see what the minimum image file sizes ought to be for a reasonable browsing experience.

Cheers,

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

well,

I know that (with my reallllly slow upload b/width) it can take ages to upload large files.

What I often do is (using Irfanview) is save the file as a decent size (about 800wide.. ish) BUT I change the quality of the image too so that it is no longer quite so -awesome- (not that a 4megapixel camera is 'awesome') and that change of image quality can drop a 1meg file down to a 100kb file or smaller, yet still retaining a reasonable size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup....black screen.....green text.....and that was cutting edge technology.....we were the envy of everyone on the block.....but tell that to kids these days and they won't believe you. :lol:

There's a Monty Python skit somewhere in this thread.....

Cutting edge technology??? green text???

I had an amber monitor. Now that was cutting edge!!!!

When I talk to my nine year old kid about the time before just about every home had a computer, he looks at me like he needs to get me into a retirement home...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the images were re-sized to a smaller file size before upload then my internet connection or outdated processor could cope better and I'd be able to enjoy ARC more.

DO you get the same thing happen[locked out } when you look at the larger images posted on BM or LSP which also have had members there posted larger images .One of your own photosposted showing something browny in one of the threads today is HUGE and covers the pages is that after being resized,Aagin it is curioity :wasntme::whistle:

... but when people have linked a comment on ARC WITH links to LSP as you once did for the Ralph's Reise Mustang then does that happen there too..Just curious !No offense intended... :unsure:

Or IS it just ARC... <_<

a Curious HOLMESY <_<

edit:typing.

Edited by HOLMES
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree. People seem to want bigger and bigger. Supersize my pics. Maybe good if you are printing, but not necessary for on line viewing. I usually cruise ARC on my basement computer with Win98 (how last century) and the poor old thing just quits when huge pictures turn up.

Please forgive me for posting a Monty Python skit earlier. I was trying to post a link and ended up with the whole thing. As pennance I will work on the worst kit in my stash.

Cheers

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just how do we determine how large is too large ?

Any picture that has to resize ? Maybe 500 x 500 ?

Last I knew, Photobucket had a size limitation on pictures to be uploaded at ... What about other hosting sites ?

Sounds like some folks need more Ram rather than faster connections ...

Lastly, this is a detail oriented site and large pictures help convey detail ...

Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems like 800x600 give or take is "normal" and what I resize my photos to. Unless things have changed most monitors can only handle 72dpi resolution so anything more is overkill. At that size and resolution you are usually looking at less than 200kb.

The banner size limits has seemed to go by the wayside. I think 150x700 was the established size for the GB banners. Most of the GB banners stay pretty close to this, but I have seen a few images in peoples sigline that are basically full page photos.

Edited by Aaronw
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Geedub here - "sounds like some folks need more RAM" notwithstanding...and despite SBARC's witty remarks (yep I remember the first IBM PC's too ;)), I thought the max. size for photos was 800x600, as AaronW pointed out. Since we are trying to share our work with 'the masses', it makes sense to me to re-size things to fit the parameters the site has to offer, exceptions (IMO) being reference photos and macro "super-detail" shots of tiny parts of a build.

I didn't detect any animosity, and not really even 'minor griping', so to speak, in GW's (op's) statements, just a sense of wanting to enjoy all the amazing builds here without spending the time (and considerable $) to speed up one's computer system to do so.

I hope many more people continue to post inspiring builds/ reference pics here, resized or not...just consider that everyone who checks out this site may not have a "state of the art" operating system - people can always PM or email larger versions of their photos to anyone who expresses interest.

Just sayin' :D

-Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob, thanks man, great to see you. Say, where you been?

DO you get the same thing happen[locked out } when you look at the larger images posted on BM or LSP which also have had members there posted larger images .

Hello HOLMES, no offense taken. In answer to your question, yes it does happen. It's not a particular site thing just a volume thing. If there are a number of large image files it does n't matter where I view the content.

The image that you refer to is 1000 pixels wide and gets re-sized by the software but the important thing is that it is only 100kb big. Your point kind of makes my case really. It is quite possible to include large images but keep the file size sensible and allow easy browsing. A good example of this is Chuck Sawyer's F-4E thread in the "In-progress" section. Chuck posts plenty of highly detailed photos of his work but because he keeps the individual files smaller it is possible to browse his topic easily. Many folk could take a leaf out of his book.

So, just how do we determine how large is too large ?

Any picture that has to resize ? Maybe 500 x 500 ?

Last I knew, Photobucket had a size limitation on pictures to be uploaded at ... What about other hosting sites ?

Sounds like some folks need more Ram rather than faster connections ...

Lastly, this is a detail oriented site and large pictures help convey detail ...

Gregg

Hi Gregg, thanks for sharing your opinion. You pose a good question. The dimensions of the image are n't really the issue though, it's more the size of each file. I'm not averse to clicking the top of the image to see the whole thing full size. What makes it difficult is if that file is large, like Mbs large. When a number of those bad boys pop up in a thread I can wave my 'puter bye byes.

I think you are correct in that PB limits individual images to 1Mb each for the free service at least but you get a couple of those in a thread and :wacko: .........(see above).

I'm guessing that extra RAM would probably help but it might not be a feasible option for everybody. Not everyone has spare cash to spend on hardware. Instead, how difficult would it be for an OP to give a warning in the topic title.

A "Warning-contains multiple large images" line would advise those folk with less capable machines that they view the thread at their peril. It's not difficult or time consuming but it would be enormously helpful.

Finally, your point about the detail orientated site is valid and I hear exactly what you are saying. I would n't wish to limit those who enjoy modern powerful machines from soaking up their 24" images in glorious HD but that's where that little warning comes in again. ;)

Thanks for the input and comments guys. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who's struggling at times.

Cheers and happy browsing.

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, maybe the solution is just posting links to the photos then ...

That way pages will load quickly and the viewer can choose what images to view ...

And since we're griping, can we please label those multiple link stacks ...? :thumbsup:

Gregg

Edited by GreyGhost
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...