Pages with oversized pics

Doesn't the uploader tool automatically resize them?

No, they only appear resized in articles and forum posts.

It did before the new layout I remember noticing that when I started here.

Most of my uploaded images lately would be that, I guess, mostly because I post and upload mostly from my phone.

edited 17th May '15 10:56:20 PM by Memers

Shigatsu Wa Kimi No Uso

First 4 characters are fine I think, the rest are nope.

Some clarification on the size limits would be nice. I know that before the Image Uploader was redone, they were 350px wide (height limited only by what looks alright on the page) and 200KB (which appears to be a more generous - if not absurdly so - 1MB now).

I mean, when I gave WebVideo.Lazy Game Reviews an image, I just took a high-res version of his then-current (still-current?) avatar, cropped out some dead space on the top and bottom, and uploaded the still-900px-wide result, expecting it to be properly shrunk on the page (which it has been). Or Mascot Villain, an IPD-chosen image, which is 1,178px-by-1,490px and about 350KB large. Are these not okay now? I'm not sure why this thread exists if they're fine, hence my desire for clarification.

edited 18th May '15 11:16:14 AM by ShadowHog

The limits in the old uploader were meant to put reasonable restrictions on pic sizes (both physical and data) to make pages load relatively easy while not compromising quality. With the new uploader not having those restrictions, people can upload massive pics that get shrunk to 350 px by the page coding but can make pages take forever to load depending on your computer and internet connection. I've seen more than one complaint about this, hence the need to make this something to fix.

edited 18th May '15 12:12:11 PM by Willbyr

Well, slow loading would be more of a filesize thing than a physical size thing, surely?

Sure, but considering physical size directly impacts file size...

Well, yeah, I'm aware of that relationship. Compression tends to blur the line a bit, of course (it's not like we're uploading BMP files here or anything), but I do recall how trying to get certain PNGs to fit within 200KB at 350px, even with OptiPNG, was a challenge.

edited 18th May '15 1:05:32 PM by ShadowHog

If I can't get a PNG that's under 200KB, I use the resizing site in my sig to get a high-quality JPG, setting 200KB as the max filesize.

Do the three pictures changed on this page today need to be resized or are they within scale?

Well, the context is generally from me using image editing software, so I can always do the resizing and format conversion there. (I just prefer PNG since, well, lossless.)

So I gather the answer to my question is that the filesize limit is going back down to 200KB?

They're all over 400 px, so they do need to be changed.

The uploader issues haven't been addressed yet, so I can't give a definite answer. However, as the 350px/200KB limits were what we had before and worked well, that's what I'm operating on.

edited 19th May '15 7:29:11 AM by Willbyr

Is it okay if I change them back to the original images? My ImageFu is weak which is why I tend to take image issues to others rather than attempt a bad job myself.

I think we might want to reconsider the maximum width, since I believe it was made before widescreen became ubiquitous and before HiDPI was really a thing.

I could see making 500px the max width, and resizing the image based on percentage. AS for file size, 200kb would still be enough for that, though maybe 300kb would be okay. We don't really need anything above 80% quality.

edited 9th Jun '15 9:14:47 AM by MrPodPerson

I mean, we're not going to be using JPEG exclusively, if that's your implication there.

I'd prefer to not take the pics over their current limits...not everyone uses a widescreen monitor or laptop.

Web design is usually mindful of the lowest common denominator among possible or probable users, not currently widespread technology. Even today, many web pages are built for a 1024x768 screen resolution.

I'd imagine that the file size is more important than the resolution for how long it takes to load an image, right? It shouldn't matter if an image is 800 px wide if it's not even 100 kb.

True, but A) the file size would be even smaller if the image wasn't oversized, and B) in theory, Photoshop (or some other image manipulation tool) is better at resampling than web browsers are.

The image for Cubivore's page seems rather huge. On this iPhone 5 that I use to browse/edit, it takes up a good amount of the screen and, if in portrait orientation, leaves room only for "You, a" before the rest of the paragraph had to migrate to below the image.

This may need to be replaced if possible.

edited 20th Jun '15 6:04:58 PM by Berrenta

It's only 320 px

Oh, alright then. Thanks for the speedy response!

It appears that the pic resizing code has either been broken or removed, per the last few posts here. Thus, we should start seeing more reports coming to this thread.