Can we handle images more elegantly?

[pythonmegapixel]

Currently if an image is inserted, it's just dumped into the post at full resolution. This is inelegant and creates a few problems. Even modern smartphone cameras are high resolution enough now that it's possible, and common, to take a photo which doesn't fit on the screen all at once when you allow for the browser, the taskbar and so on.  That makes it hard to take in all the information on the photo, which isn't ideal.

 

This problem is exacerbated by posts such as build logs, which have multiple images in them sequentially, and it can sometimes really feel like a chore to scroll through them.  Additionally, on slow connections, the images are too large to load all at once so they load in slowly. This also uses a lot of data, negatively impacting mobile users on LTE.

 

The simplest solution would be to have every image auto-resize to 500px across, or something like that, but there are other things that could be done. I'm open to ideas!

[Spotty]

4 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Currently if an image is inserted, it's just dumped into the post at full resolution.

 

4 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

The simplest solution would be to have every image auto-resize to 500px across, or something like that, but there are other things that could be done. I'm open to ideas!

Images shown in posts are limited to 1000x1000 pixels (max of either 1000 horizontal or vertical pixels). If you click on the image you can view a full resolution version.

What you're suggesting is already in place, just with a different resolution limit.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Spotty

[pythonmegapixel]

3 minutes ago, Spotty said:

 

Images shown in posts are limited to 1000x1000 pixels (max of either 1000 horizontal or vertical pixels). If you click on the image you can view a full resolution version.

What you're suggesting is already in place, just with a different resolution limit.

That's really too large though. Once you account for the taskbar and browser stuff, a height of 1000 easily goes off the bottom of a 1080p monitor.

 

I usually resize my images to be about 450 across, so I think that would be a sensible limit.

[8tg]

If I’m correct you can manually resize

[pythonmegapixel]

Just now, 8tg said:

If I’m correct you can manually resize

Not everyone bothers though

[Luscious]

Well my problem is different - images don't show up AT ALL for me

 

Don't just support Chrome browser guys. Enthusiasts like to have options. Can we show some love for Firefox???

 

[colonel_mortis]

2 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

That's really too large though. Once you account for the taskbar and browser stuff, a height of 1000 easily goes off the bottom of a 1080p monitor.

 

I usually resize my images to be about 450 across, so I think that would be a sensible limit.

1000px wide was chosen because it's just slightly narrower than a post on desktop, so it's resizing the image to remove as much detail as reasonable without impacting how it actually looks on the screen. In my experience, that works pretty well for most posts, although I can see how it could get annoying on mobile. If we chose 450px or 500px, that would mean that nobody who wants their image to be wide can do so, and that sucks.

 

We also compress images fairly aggressively, to reduce the bandwidth usage as much as reasonably possible.

[colonel_mortis]

4 minutes ago, Luscious said:

Well my problem is different - images don't show up AT ALL for me

 

Don't just support Chrome browser guys. Enthusiasts like to have options. Can we show some love for Firefox???

 

It should work fine on any vaguely up to date version of Firefox - if you're having issues, including with browser extensions disabled, please can you post in Forum Bugs with details of your browser version etc?

[Luscious]

27 minutes ago, colonel_mortis said:

It should work fine on any vaguely up to date version of Firefox - if you're having issues, including with browser extensions disabled, please can you post in Forum Bugs with details of your browser version etc?

You've pretty much answered the question right there LOL Is having backward compatibility an impossibility?

 

I'm on FF 56.0.2 (64 bit). The reason I'm on that version is because newer ones have taken away features that I need to work, such as having the URL window above my tabs. There was also a massive certificate fail not too long ago that affected FF users as well, but a manual workaround was found for the older version.

 

You can ask Linus why he's on the older version of TeamViewer and why he hasn't updated - it's the same reason why I'm still on a Windows 7 friendly version of Acronis. Stuff like this just has to work, and updating/upgrading strips away key features and/or the ability to customize it to do what we need. That's pretty much the rundown on why I keep FF the way I have it.

 

I will post this on the bug forum as well as you've requested. Appreciate the help

[pythonmegapixel]

15 hours ago, colonel_mortis said:

1000px wide was chosen because it's just slightly narrower than a post on desktop, so it's resizing the image to remove as much detail as reasonable without impacting how it actually looks on the screen. In my experience, that works pretty well for most posts, although I can see how it could get annoying on mobile. If we chose 450px or 500px, that would mean that nobody who wants their image to be wide can do so, and that sucks.

No reason why the height and width limits have to be the same.

Why not limit the height to 500 and the width to 1000, for example?

 

The issue with a height of 1000 is that it doesn't fit into a browser window on a 1080p monitor.

[wall03]

16 hours ago, colonel_mortis said:

1000px wide was chosen because it's just slightly narrower than a post on desktop, so it's resizing the image to remove as much detail as reasonable without impacting how it actually looks on the screen. In my experience, that works pretty well for most posts, although I can see how it could get annoying on mobile. If we chose 450px or 500px, that would mean that nobody who wants their image to be wide can do so, and that sucks.

 

We also compress images fairly aggressively, to reduce the bandwidth usage as much as reasonably possible.

What about resizing the image on phones and not changing anything on desktop.

Is that possible?

[pythonmegapixel]

18 minutes ago, wall03 said:

What about resizing the image on phones and not changing anything on desktop.

Is that possible?

There is still a problem with that though..., even a height of 1000px or even slightly under that goes off the bottom of a 1080p monitor

[colonel_mortis]

7 hours ago, wall03 said:

What about resizing the image on phones and not changing anything on desktop.

Is that possible?

No, because once it's in your post it's fixed so we can't swap it out based on the screen size.

6 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

There is still a problem with that though..., even a height of 1000px or even slightly under that goes off the bottom of a 1080p monitor

That shouldn't be a problem for most pictures, which are landscape, though right?

[Mark Kaine]

On 1/7/2021 at 1:22 AM, Luscious said:

You've pretty much answered the question right there LOL Is having backward compatibility an impossibility?

 

I'm on FF 56.0.2 (64 bit). The reason I'm on that version is because newer ones have taken away features that I need to work, such as having the URL window above my tabs. There was also a massive certificate fail not too long ago that affected FF users as well, but a manual workaround was found for the older version.

 

You can ask Linus why he's on the older version of TeamViewer and why he hasn't updated - it's the same reason why I'm still on a Windows 7 friendly version of Acronis. Stuff like this just has to work, and updating/upgrading strips away key features and/or the ability to customize it to do what we need. That's pretty much the rundown on why I keep FF the way I have it.

 

I will post this on the bug forum as well as you've requested. Appreciate the help

on my Samsung tablet where I have the *original* version of Opera browser (so before they sold out, and when they were still good!) LTT basically doesn't work at all on it anymore... I bet it's a security thing or the recent update just broke some stuff (it worked fine before that iirc) 

 

And for example, I have the original Edge browser ( before it got "chromiumed", and when it still was good!) and you know what? it basically stopped working on *any* page... " please update your browser".... like I would lol, but point is its basically dysfunctional now and also you cannot expect a browser to work forever nowadays, longevity isn't something modern design has in mind, we now have a cancel culture and backwards compatibility is fundamentally detrimental to that, apparently.  

 

 

On 1/7/2021 at 5:08 PM, pythonmegapixel said:

There is still a problem with that though..., even a height of 1000px or even slightly under that goes off the bottom of a 1080p monitor

I mean there's still some stuff that's kinda buggy but I checked the site on my pc recently and pictures looked just fine? they get resized automatically anyway. I kinda wish the mobile site would look more similar to the desktop site but obviously still in a mobile format because things currently are just too big and due to the spacing there's very little overview... however pictures specially seem to scale well.