+RocketMan Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 I have always manually adjusted the file size of my images before uploading to get them to display as large and clear as possible. Today, any images that I upload to a cache page are getting resized to 600 pixels wide no matter what the uploaded file size is! They are not supposed to get resized if they are under 125KB. This in only happening to images that I upload on a cache page. Everything works as advertised in the cache logs. Here is an example: This image was uploaded at 1000 pixels wide and 96KB file size. It is now 600 pixels wide. A fix to this problem would be much appreciated. Thanks, Rocket Man Link to comment
+Bob Blaylock Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 I'm quite sure I've seen it stated that uploaded images are limited not only to 125K in file size, but 600 pixels in width. I cannot speak for TPTB, but it seems obvious to me that a restriction on image width as well as file size is prudent. 1024x768 is probably the most common screen size these days. Allowing for a certain amount of margin for scroll bars, window borders, and such, a 1000–pixel–wide image would not fit nicely on most people's screens. It'd be great for those who have higher-resolution displays, but for most of us, it'd be a nuisance. An overly-wide image screws up formatting for the entire page on which it appears, making it necessary to continually scroll back and forth horizontally to read the text. Link to comment
+garri Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 You always can see a preview of the images before click to see the original size so this shouldn't be annoying for you, i think. I used to resize my images to 800*600 under 121 Kbytes and saturday i noticed too that the webpage resizes the images to 600 anyways. I currently have a screen dispaly with 1024*768 and 800*600 fits very well but i don't like see full sized images with obnly 600 pixels wide, in the folowing years we will have screen dispalys with more than 2000 pixels witdh and those images will be very small. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 I'm very confused on this one. I'll look at my code on Monday to make sure I know what the requirements are. Link to comment
ju66l3r Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 I currently have a screen dispaly with 1024*768 and 800*600 fits very well but i don't like see full sized images with obnly 600 pixels wide, in the folowing years we will have screen dispalys with more than 2000 pixels witdh and those images will be very small. The solution to your problem may be to provide a link from your profile page to where you are hosting the full-sized images elsewhere. Link to comment
+Team GeoDillo Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 A file size limitation makes sense, but an image (pixel) size limitation makes no sense at all. I like the fact that when you view a log with images, that the images show up as a 300x225 thumbnails. It makes sense that when you click on the thumbnail that you should be able to see the full resolution image as long as the file size is under the 125 kb limit (as not to be wasteful of server space). But to click on a thumbnail image only to get another resized image makes no sense at all. Please don't limit image size! Link to comment
ju66l3r Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 That's not true. Image dimension limitations do make sense because page layout is dicatated by a website's style/design. Link to comment
+RocketMan Posted August 2, 2004 Author Share Posted August 2, 2004 (edited) I'm quite sure I've seen it stated that uploaded images are limited not only to 125K in file size, but 600 pixels in width. There is only supposed to be a file size limitation, not a pixel width limitation. Here are some examples of larger than 600 pixel images: From Cache Log Today Travel Bug Log Today Cache Page Upload from a While Back Recent Cache Page Upload (Reduced to 600 pixels) Rocket Man Edited August 2, 2004 by Rocket Man Link to comment
+RocketMan Posted August 2, 2004 Author Share Posted August 2, 2004 An overly-wide image screws up formatting for the entire page on which it appears, making it necessary to continually scroll back and forth horizontally to read the text. This is not the case with images uploaded to logs and cache pages. The full size versions only show up in their own browser window. There is no text to screw up. Most browsers automatically adjust the image to fit in the browser window anyway. The higher the resolution the better in my book. RM Link to comment
Schatztaucher Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 I have always manually adjusted the file size of my images before uploading to get them to display as large and clear as possible. Today, any images that I upload to a cache page are getting resized to 600 pixels wide no matter what the uploaded file size is! They are not supposed to get resized if they are under 125KB. This in only happening to images that I upload on a cache page. Everything works as advertised in the cache logs. .... I can confirm that. Too bad. I made a post for that reason already last year, but it seems to be still the same story. As far as I remember this problem was launched then. Regards, Roger (from Germany) Link to comment
+Team GeoDillo Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 (edited) That's not true. Image dimension limitations do make sense because page layout is dictated by a website's style/design. I'm referring to the image when you click on a thumbnail image in the logs. It opens up the image (only) on a page that has NO layout/style/design. With most browsers resizing an image that is too large to fit the screen anyway, there is no reason not to let people upload images to logs that are as wide as they want, as long as they are under the 125 kb limit. Edited August 2, 2004 by Team GeoDillo Link to comment
ju66l3r Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 True, although the first person to post a 1 pixel high, 2400 pixel wide image should be thrown off the website. Link to comment
+garri Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Today i uploaded some images 800 pixel width and the cache page didn't resized the images Have you solved the problem? Jeremy Link to comment
+planetrobert Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 True, although the first person to post a 1 pixel high, 2400 pixel wide image should be thrown off the website. hmmmmmmm Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Can anyone link to an image that isn't working? Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 Nevermind. I'll use some of the above examples. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 I have verified the issue. It seems to be specific to cache listings. I'll apply the fix in the next patch. Link to comment
+RocketMan Posted August 3, 2004 Author Share Posted August 3, 2004 I have verified the issue. It seems to be specific to cache listings. I'll apply the fix in the next patch. Exactly what I have experienced (It is specific to cache listings). Thanks a bunch Jeremy. RM Link to comment
+RocketMan Posted August 8, 2004 Author Share Posted August 8, 2004 I have verified the issue. It seems to be specific to cache listings. I'll apply the fix in the next patch. Any progress on the patch? I have to post aerial maps to cache logs instead of the cache page itself to get around the 600 pixel resizing. Thanks, RM Link to comment
Recommended Posts