10Mb photo limit

[jdb82]

Admin, This might have been covered in a different post recently, so feel free to redirect me towards that if you wish. There seems to be a growing discontent about the 10mb limit per post for uploading photos. Most of my activity on RMweb is in the kit/scratch building, 7mm and industrial forums, and I’m concerned that there are a number of very talented modellers who are choosing not to post on RMweb anymore due to the limit, and are heading over to WT instead. 

In an effort to prevent the considerable drain of talent, is it not an easy fix of simply entering a different value into a setting box somewhere behind the scenes?

[Harlequin]

Agreed. I spent a lot of time constructing a blog post yesterday but was prevented from posting it because I could not add the final image, which showed the end result of the story.

 

Furthermore, when the uploader shows the "queued" state there doesn't seem to be a way to cancel it or then complete or save the post and so you are left wondering what to do next. If you navigate away, leaving your post incomplete, many users might think they'd lost all their work but the system does restore it if you click "Add Entry" again. Not very obvious. And if you log out then that content really is lost.

 

In my case I did log out but I had copied the entry and pasted it outside RMWeb, just in case. So I now face the task of reconstructing the post with its images and links but because I know there's a good chance the post will fail again it's a chore that I'm not looking forward to.

 

Edit: The uploader still shows "queued" when I try to upload my critical photo so my enthusiasm to complete the post is waning.

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Harlequin

[PaulRhB]

Andy said in the main new features thread people are downloading massive images so he’s limited it. 10mb is still five uncompressed phone photos but if people are shooting in hi res some are 5-6mb each off cameras! 

Why not just spilt it to two posts or resize the images down a bit?

Resizing is easy in paint, open photo hold down Ctrl + W and pop in 70%-80%, they will still be big images for details. Resizing a batch on an iPhone / iPad is even simpler just email a batch to yourself and select large rather than full size. 

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by PaulRhB

[Harlequin]

The images in the post were not that big - they had already been resized down. During editing I had uploaded a few and deleted them from the post and I suspect that tipped me over the 10Mb total (daily?) limit. I haven't tested that theory yet.

 

The final image, the one that I can't currently upload, has been resized to be 1500 px wide because I know that is also one of Andy's limits. It is a 2.2Mb PNG to prevent JPEG compression affecting the image quality.

 

But the point is, these limits might help the forum but they are obstructive for the users. It would be great if it could be a bit less obstructive.

 

(BTW: I wouldn't touch Paint with a barge pole. Its sub-sampling and JPEG compression are not the best.)

 

[rodent279]

Very often, simply opening and then saving a phone photo will resize it. 

[DaveF]

 

 

The limit is supposed to be 10Mb in any one post.

 

If you are uploading large size images in order to retain image quality then remember that  a monitor (or screen on a phone or tablet which many people use to view RMWeb) cannot display any more pixels than the screen resolution - on my monitor that is 1920 pixels across - and on RMWeb you do not get a full screen image.

 

So if you are uploading images bigger than around that you are not improving the quality of image that the user will see on their screen.

 

You also need to remember that if you upload a large image it can be difficult for other users to view - not everyone has a fast connection so a large image file can take a long time to load n screen when someone clicks on your post.  Also quite a lot of people have usage limits so have to be a bit careful about how much they use the web.

 

Lastly, storage costs money, if we all upload large images then Warners would incur much higher charges for server storage capacity  - and remember that we don't pay to use RMWeb, any costs not covered by advertising are paid by Warners out of profits from their publishing.

 

I upload at least 5 images every day, I resize them to give a compromise between image quality and file size so that everyone can easily see them no matter what connection they use.  Resizing takes only a few seconds for each image.

 

Someone might like to do the calculation for the storage space my images on RMWeb use - over 8,000 images at 350Kb each as I upload them compared to 4.5Mb per image if I uploaded them resized but uncompressed or around 10Mb plus if I could upload the original file.

 

David

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by DaveF

[jonny777]

I scale all my images down to between about 450k and 900k before posting them here; the final size does depend somewhat on the amount and variation of colour.  I do not see any significant loss of quality when viewed on the website pages via a computer screen. For instance, the photo below is 818k but seems to contain enough detail to satisfy most visitors to this site (I hope).  I can't quite grasp how a 10mb+ image would improve anything, and as Dave F says above - it would be extremely expensive for the web host if everyone did it. 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

It is a 2.2Mb PNG to prevent JPEG compression affecting the image quality.

 

If you use lossless PNG to avoid jpeg compression effects, try reducing the colour depth to 8-bit (256-colour) before saving it.

 

This will significantly reduce the PNG file size. Colours might be a bit off, but it won't make any difference to fine detail or line graphics for example.

 

Martin.

[jdb82]

OK, I get the usage costs etc, however for users who are uploading every day, they are unlikely to be willing to resize the photos they upload as this is an additional and often time consuming step. 10Mb is a woefully low limit in today's digital world. When high quality modellers are choosing to abandon posting on this site in favour of another with far more generous limits, alarm bells should be ringing. @Andy Y, would you be willing to consider an increase?

[Silver Sidelines]

10Mb maximum is a pain - 'no such restriction on 'Blogger'.

 

What happens if the images are loaded from an external web site?

 

Ray

[DaveF]

26 minutes ago, jdb82 said:

OK, I get the usage costs etc, however for users who are uploading every day, they are unlikely to be willing to resize the photos they upload as this is an additional and often time consuming step. 10Mb is a woefully low limit in today's digital world. When high quality modellers are choosing to abandon posting on this site in favour of another with far more generous limits, alarm bells should be ringing. @Andy Y, would you be willing to consider an increase?

 

 

I upload photos to RMWeb every day.

 

It takes me a few seconds to resize each photo in Photoshop.  Open photo, select image size, type in number of pixels and save.  I could even set it up as an "Action" which is even quicker.

 

What is the problem?

 

If I have to look at posts containing images with very large file sizes they will be slower to load when I click on them, that might put me off RMWeb or any other site which allows that - unless the software automatically resizes the images it displays (as flickr does), but then that will negate your desire for the highest possible quality - which as I and others have said is actually limited by the monitor or other display device.

 

Second edit - it took me 15 seconds to open, resize and save an image.

 

David

Edited March 24, 2019 by DaveF
Edited to remove a superfluous sentence

[Philou]

What's the problem? Some of us don't have Photoshop - far too expensive for what it is. I don't have Paint as I'm weaning myself off Microsoft and I don't have a mobile phone let alone a 'phone with a camera - that's the problem I'm afraid.

 

Cheers (from the Dark Ages ),

 

Philip

 

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Philou said:

What's the problem? Some of us don't have Photoshop - far too expensive for what it is. I don't have Paint as I'm weaning myself off Microsoft and I don't have a mobile phone let alone a 'phone with a camera - that's the problem I'm afraid.

 

Hi Philip,

 

Irfanview is a) free, and b) not Microsoft: https://www.irfanview.com/

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Philou]

@ Martin

 

Hurrah - I did try Gimp, but I couldn't get on with it - it wasn't (at the time) intuitive and the documentation was lacking. It may of course have been improved since. I will give Irfanview a go.

 

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

Philip

[DaveF]

1 hour ago, Philou said:

What's the problem? Some of us don't have Photoshop - far too expensive for what it is. I don't have Paint as I'm weaning myself off Microsoft and I don't have a mobile phone let alone a 'phone with a camera - that's the problem I'm afraid.

 

Cheers (from the Dark Ages ),

 

Philip

 

 

Philip,

 

I only have Photoshop as work bought me a copy a long time ago as I often worked from home so it was cost effective for them.

 

Other image editors will do just the same job - I hope Irfanview works well for you.

 

Some time ago I  tried Gimp and, like you, found it was not intuitive.  I have used Paint Shop Pro from time to time.

 

David

[Philou]

@DaveF

 

You were lucky! Free Photoshop eh? When I were a lad ............. mumble mumble

 

(I did get given a copy of Windows 3.11 from work - it went downhill from thereon ...........)

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

[Wellyboots]

I'm really not getting why some people think 10Mb is not enough, there seems to be a lot of theory and not much practice on the part of those complaining. My camera, Lumix FZ2500, produces a "small" jpeg file along with the RAW file, this small jpeg is 1920 x 1280 pixels and, for this image, is 427kb in size;

 

 

 

This is it reduced to 1024 x 683 pixels which produces a 180kb file;

 

And this is the original image reduced to 800 x 533 pixels which gives a 133kb file.

 

With the 1920 x 1280 size 20 images could be uploaded without reaching the 10Mb limit and if the 1024 x 683 was used you would surely have more than enough. I used GIMP 2.10 to reduce the file size but I'm sure very similar results can be obtained with other programs, a little bit of online research might be need to show you how a certain piece of software does things but that's the way many people learn.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Wellyboots

[Kiwi]

Just to add another suggestion - you don’t  even need to download any software. Just go to https://pixlr.com/x/

 

Free, easy to use, nothing to install (or keep updated). I believe before the upgrade RMW used to provide a link to its predecessor at the upload screen. The latest version is much improved. 

 

As others have said, there's no valid reason to upload large image files. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Kiwi

[Silver Sidelines]

Not sure whether I have written a Blog Post since the change of software.  However I enjoy making high quality images which I send to Flickr.  When importing these images into RMweb there is a very simple size choice on Flickr.  The reason I say the 10Mb limit is a pain is that my ccurrent camera seems to make images just over the 5Mb so if posting two to answer a thread two together are too big.  The easy solution is to just post two separate  answers, three of four if necessary.

 

Ray

Edited March 25, 2019 by Silver Sidelines

[AY Mod]

9 minutes ago, Silver Sidelines said:

The easy solution is to just post twoseparate  answers, three of four if necessary.

 

It isn't the best answer, the best thing to do is to get to grips with re-sizing as others have explained. I will be posting a more expansive answer a little later. It may be easy for you but I will go on to explain the repercussions.

[Harlequin]

For the record, I abandoned my attempts to upload a 2.2MB PNG because it wouldn't upload even into a blank post. The uploader just said "queued" every time.

 

I uploaded a high quality JPG in it's place (~800KB).

 

[AY Mod]

Whilst I was preparing the server for the major software upgrade a month or so back I looked at what was using resources. Increasingly frequently we'd be moving towards filling disk capacity on the server and each time work needed to be done to increase the virtual capacity this would lead to planned downtime and every time the disk space was increased it would mean increased charges, logical enough. The whole foundation of RMweb, 14 years ago, was the capacity to upload images to support content. Posts above from Dave Ford, Martin Wynne, Kiwi and Wellyboots show a responsible approach by including a resizing step in the process before upload. Over the years the camera megapixel race moved on with corresponding increases in image file sizes and with more and more people taking mobile phone shots of anything and everything this has led to steadily increasing demands, not just of RMweb but social media as a whole. Facebook may have arctic-cooled server farms but we don't so we have to be sensible and so I looked at what was using the disk space. Being kind I would say there was a lot of casual usage of the facilities (particularly with respect to Galleries) but being harsh a lot of the images were rubbish. A blurred under-exposed image straight from a mobile may well use as much storage as a technically excellent image from an SLR so a degree of quality filtration was looked at. But with over a million files to consider I'm not sitting there on a case-by-case basis so simplistically looked at Galleries full of large files, often with filename such as IMG1234.jpg which tells me that no effort to resize the image has been made and then I would look at the Gallery usage; is the member still active and how many people have viewed or commented on the images. If there was tumbleweed a cull would be made and this has decluttered the server making better use of resources. More about Galleries in due course next week.

 

To a lesser degree the same criteria can be applied to topics and posts, a user doesn't do themselves any favours with bad pictures and some oversized and virtually unused images got the chop too. And no, I'm not going to write to a user who hasn't been on here for two years to ask if I can remove their blurred pictures of some RTR locos on a trainset which few have looked at.

 

Anyway, onto practical aspects. When setting up the new software I wanted images to display better than before and chose a different display size up to 1500px wide - that's what users see (most don't click to enlarge) - I wanted them to be better so that people are encouraged to upload more good content as images *can* be a good thing plus the new software has made it even easier to upload multiple files via drag and drop (previously there was a limit of 10 images at a time) so I needed to ensure that parts of the site didn't become a virtual skip for poor pics hence imposing a practical 10MB per post limit. The posters named realise that this is not an onerous limit.

 

 

 

Can you see much difference in the two pics above on whatever device you are using? Hopefully not too much. The first image uploaded was a 93MB JPG file (because I can :p) and the second a 1.2MB JPG file before they were uploaded. The system then carries out the upload (which obviously takes longer and more server time for a larger file) and then it has to carry out a resizing, it seems exponentially longer for a large file compared to a small one. Too much of that going on and it can cause increased server loads with poorer performance for other users on completely unconnected areas of the site - this has been an issue anyway so I'm glad we've had these sensible limitations in place.

 

Moving on from that if all images were displayed at upload size (especially the full fat ones) then loading speeds for the people who you wish to read your topic or post can become slower and use their data allowances, particularly for mobile users.

 

You don't need expensive software to do it, Irfanview as a free download to a PC is great with a massive amount of resize and compression selection whilst pixlr is an easy online tool. The worst culprits? Mobiles and tablets; few seem to make use of resizing apps. All this talk of resizing should be underlined with the fact that you do not have to resize and compress your originals (that you should keep anyway), you can create a smaller, compressed file for upload to any social media. In years to come society will moan about the number of server farms adding to global warming as Petabytes of data grow and grow - and most of it will be down to this, videos of cats and what I had for dinner.

 

Look after polar bears, orangutans and RMweb - resize your pics.

 

However, there will be some interesting news next week on something connected with this!

[Silver Sidelines]

8 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

I have to say both these two pictures are great and that's even on my PC.

 

There is no such thing a s a 'free dinner' and I store high quality images on Flckr (for which I pay an annual fee) and which can be easily downloaded elsewhere at whatever size is required.

 

Ray

 

[Kylestrome]

2 hours ago, AY Mod said:

..... and then it has to carry out a resizing, it seems exponentially longer for a large file compared to a small one.

 

Can we assume that the 'system' does not resize any photo that is already resized to 1500px wide/high and 1MB or less?

 

David

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, Kylestrome said:

Can we assume that the 'system' does not resize any photo that is already resized to 1500px wide/high and 10MB or less?

 

Basically correct but it will check that it doesn't need to be resized.