Uploading Photos

I tried my 6mb jpeg again and again it was rejected as too large.
screenshot of the result image.png
 
Phil - same photo as above, same outcome as above.
You're busy with a pile of stuff and for most members this is less important detail so I'll continue to check and report back to you occasionally but less frequently.

Colin ???
 
I have changed the max res to 6000 x 4000 pixels. I need to be careful with disc space in the future. Server class SSD storage is not cheap.
 
oldish hippy;n4877 said:
just cut the photo in half and upload two halfs
Click to expand...

You have a very.............err...........err.........interesting mind, Barrie.
You gave me a laugh-out- loud moment with that one.

Colin ???
 
Admin;n4883 said:
I have changed the max res to 6000 x 4000 pixels. I need to be careful with disc space in the future. Server class SSD storage is not cheap.
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil. I suspect most won't increase their uploaded file sizes. I know for sure that you'll be monitoring the situation. In the meantime I'll try to source some free software to reduce jpeg file sizes lest you decide that is necessary. So far nobody has recommended a suitable package to me.

Colin ???
 
Phil - I've just been doing a bit of testing.
You have increased the maximum file size to 6000x4000 pixels. The server reads this as (width x height).
I've just uploaded a 5300x3000 pixel, 4.6Mb photo without problems.
A 3000x5300 pixel, 4.6Mb photo won't upload because of the constraints.
This means that, given the same overall size of photo and file size, landscape photos will upload whereas portrait won't.

How do you feel about 6000x6000 pixels? This constraint would allow both landscape and portrait and also future proof things for quite a while. I suspect it would rarely be fully utilised - but you'd monitor and modify as appropriate.

Colin ???
 
Full Member;n4462 said:
It's all about how the image is processed after being taken, Annie.
The photo image starts as a 'matrix' of coloured dots called pixels. If the image is say 1500 pixels wide by 1000 pixels high then the total number of pixels in the image will be 1500x1000=1500000 or 15 million pixels, That's quite a lot of information for your camera to store, especially as each pixel has to be recorded in terms of it's colour and brightness etc.
Before the image is stored the image information is processed to reduce it's size by a piece of in-built software called an algorithm. Many types of algorithms have been developed to do this work but currently the most popular is the 'jpeg' algorithm.
The algorithm scans the original image and should there be little or no difference between several pixels it notes this fact and simply stores something like "put 5000 pale blue pixels in the top right hand corner of Colin's Canary Island photo". This is also done for say the beige rock on the volcano side. This sort of thing is very rapidly done for the whole picture so that the image size as stored is much reduced.
When the camera 'reads' the file information it effectively does all this in reverse and - hey presto! - the original image is very closely reproduce for all to wonder at.

Now the effect of this on uploading to the site. You (and the vast majority of us) will leave the camera settings as they are even if they are adjustable. You might imagine then that all images would be the same file size and so if one photo uploads then they all should. If we consider how those files were created their size will depend not only on the camera setting but also on just how much duplication of pixel type there is in the image. The more duplication, the smaller the file size. Hence some of our images are above the limit set by Phil or the server owner and some are below the limit (currently about 890Kb).

I hope all this makes sense and is based on my rather limited knowledge in this area.
Incidentally similar things are done with music where the original music is 'sampled' and the file size reduced. The software most commonly used here is the 'mp3' algorithm - which would have been used on the music you listen to.

As always, I'd appreciate input from the experts!

Colin ???
Click to expand...


Actually - that's a pretty good explanation in simple human terms for a pretty complex bit of software. Well done. :)
 
Rockburner;n4961 said:
Actually - that's a pretty good explanation in simple human terms for a pretty complex bit of software. Well done. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, Rockburner - I really appreciate that. I have to admit that I'm certainly no expert in this field.

Colin ???

 
alwaysared;n5092 said:
I use FastStone Image Viewer for Windows, there is a install or Portable Version available free for home use. It also renames files and you can create slide shows etc.

Regards,
Del
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information, Del. I'll have a look at your suggestion once I'm back in the UK

Colin ???
 
Full Member;n5176 said:
Thanks for the information, Del. I'll have a look at your suggestion once I'm back in the UK

Colin ???
Click to expand...

Take plenty of photos to post for us. ?
 
Campervanannie;n5237 said:
Take plenty of photos to post for us. ?
Click to expand...

Will do, Annie.
As you'll see on the Weather Report thread, today's weather is looking to be as boring as yesterday's (!).

Colin ???
 
I keep a folder on Postimage of photos etc I want to upload, then just attach to my post via URL link and I don't get any size problems.
 
Edina;n5274 said:
I keep a folder on Postimage of photos etc I want to upload, then just attach to my post via URL link and I don't get any size problems.
Click to expand...

Only problem with that is that if they go the way of photobucket all your online photo posts become blank.
 
2cv;n5277 said:
Only problem with that is that if they go the way of photobucket all your online photo posts become blank.
Click to expand...


I still have the original photos and I think forum photos are rarely looked back on after the original thread slows down.
 
FWIW I tend to use Flickr for uploading and storing photos.
But then I used to do quite a lot of photography and Flickr was very good for that so I have a 'pro' account!
 
Full Member;n4462 said:
It's all about how the image is processed after being taken, Annie.
The photo image starts as a 'matrix' of coloured dots called pixels. If the image is say 1500 pixels wide by 1000 pixels high then the total number of pixels in the image will be 1500x1000=1500000 or 15 million pixels, That's quite a lot of information for your camera to store, especially as each pixel has to be recorded in terms of it's colour and brightness etc.
Before the image is stored the image information is processed to reduce it's size by a piece of in-built software called an algorithm. Many types of algorithms have been developed to do this work but currently the most popular is the 'jpeg' algorithm.
The algorithm scans the original image and should there be little or no difference between several pixels it notes this fact and simply stores something like "put 5000 pale blue pixels in the top right hand corner of Colin's Canary Island photo". This is also done for say the beige rock on the volcano side. This sort of thing is very rapidly done for the whole picture so that the image size as stored is much reduced.
When the camera 'reads' the file information it effectively does all this in reverse and - hey presto! - the original image is very closely reproduce for all to wonder at.

Now the effect of this on uploading to the site. You (and the vast majority of us) will leave the camera settings as they are even if they are adjustable. You might imagine then that all images would be the same file size and so if one photo uploads then they all should. If we consider how those files were created their size will depend not only on the camera setting but also on just how much duplication of pixel type there is in the image. The more duplication, the smaller the file size. Hence some of our images are above the limit set by Phil or the server owner and some are below the limit (currently about 890Kb).

I hope all this makes sense and is based on my rather limited knowledge in this area.
Incidentally similar things are done with music where the original music is 'sampled' and the file size reduced. The software most commonly used here is the 'mp3' algorithm - which would have been used on the music you listen to.

One way forward is for Phil to increase the acceptable upload file size or include some software that reduces the size of the file just before or after it is uploaded, though there may well be better ways.

As always, I'd appreciate input from the experts!

Colin ???
Click to expand...

What a good explanation of how it works Colin.
Just work on your maths a little now. 1500x1000=1500000 or 15 million pixels. The numbers are right but should read 1.5 million. Not to be picky or owt. :Thumbs_Up_Hand_Sign:b0221:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top