something seems to have changed.  in the past, when i uploaded a large picture (when the details mattered) the posted picture was small, but when you clicked on it, the uploaded larger size would appear.  now when i upload a picture larger than ~600 pixels (i haven't worked out the exact size it reformats to), the original size is no longer available by clicking on it.

Original Post

interesting... i wonder if this will work.

[edit... strange... i upload the picture, it gets reformatted to the smaller size... but then i can grab the image handles and make it larger... problem is that it is only magnifying the smaller resolution, so still no solution to get a detailed picture uploaded.]

Attachments

Photos (1)

testing...testing...testing... 

Legacy Allegheny N1

Looks like this one expands, the expanded image says it's 999px wide.  Not nearly the full resolution, but better than the tiny image.

 

Attachments

Photos (3)
overlandflyer posted:

Flyer transformer... uploaded as a 795 x 1200 image.

[edit... when i save this now, i get a ~400 x 600 image]

if you want to cut down on the amount of space used for stored images, stop the members quoting a reply that includes dozens of the same pictures over again for no other reason then to add the comment... "nice!".  of course, these may just be pointers to the same photos, but it's still annoying.

even when you need to include a quoted picture for context, it can be resized down... ^^^

Huh. That is a disappointing development. There are more than a few occasions when I need viewers to be able to see an overall image (for context) and then be able to see one or more particular details (by clicking to enlarge to the full image size). The only way to do this now seems to be to post several pics, one the contextual overall view and then one blown-up image for each detail I want to show. Hmmm.

Lew

Growing old is so much more fun than the only alternative.

It still enlarges but only a small amount. As Posters we will need to blow up details first (by cropping in my case with a Mac) and post multiple pics to show the overall thing and then the details. It works and just takes a bit more time.

Lew

Growing old is so much more fun than the only alternative.

before, expanded...

before, inline...

now...

pretty sad change... have to rethink posting pictures if they can't be seen with a decent resolution and helpful images like that transformer diagram will be totally useless in thumbnail sizes.

i thought memory/ storage was still getting larger & cheaper every year.

Attachments

Photos (3)

Well, in defense of the forum operators, while disk prices are getting lower, they still cost money.  You also have to have space for the equipment, cooling to keep it running, backup for hardware failures, etc..  I would imagine a busy forum with lots of picture uploads would consume quite a bit of memory over the years.  It might be interesting to ask how much disk space is allocated to storing the database here, I suspect it's pretty significant.

For my little computer empire here I have several NAS drives totaling around 5 terabytes, hard to imagine what OGR has for a database size.

you might be  forgetting the unpaid support this site gets from knowledgeable collectors and operators.  look up the definition of "loss leader".  add to this international exposure of the ad revenue and you will likely discover ORG does not get zero return from the nickels and dimes they throw at this site.  the "poor us" argument isn't going to fly with me.

I'm not sure exactly what changed here, but it is worth investigating. I am going to ask Hoopla Tech Support to get into this and let me know what's going on. With the recent upgrades, this might be a new setting in my control panel that I don't know about. We'll see.

Stand by...

Rich Melvin

Nothing has changed here.

Here is a slightly truncated answer to my question posted at Hoopla Tech Support:

"We haven't made any changes in the way images are handled in Hoop.la at all...If you drag and drop a larger image into the post it'll bypass the option to choose a size to display.  Instead, if you click add attachment, upload it, then go back and click to insert it into your post you will get the popup that asks which size to embed.  I think they are skipping that step.

Either way, clicking the thumbnail in the attachments section will give you the full size.

However they are doing it, this is not anything that is new. We haven't made changes to it in a long long time."


OK folks, there ya go.

Rich Melvin

Rich, that doesn't really jive with actual reality, at least IMO.  It used to be that uploading a large graphic that it could be expanded to see detail, that doesn't work nearly as well any more.  If you look at my test post above, I uploaded a large image, here's the resolution that I uploaded.

I selected "insert all graphics once the image was processed, and it did indeed insert it.

When I click on the resultant image, it does enlarge... just a little bit.  It displays as a 999 pixel wide image, a far cry from the 4K pixel wide image I uploaded.  Here's what I get when I check the properties of the expanded image, and it's indeed about half the width of my 1080P screen.

I guess the real question, is there a maximum size to be displayed on the forum?  It "appears" to be 999 pixels wide.

testing...testing...

I'm inserting one and not checking the insert into post box, instead I went to the attachments and asked for a full sized version to be inserted.

Here's the image properties on my computer.

Stairway Wall of Trains

Here's what I get when I expand it, it shrunk it to 1,000 pixels wide.  I see no way of expanding it to full resolution.

Attachments

Photos (3)

Inserting an image here that is 4,000 pixels wide and over 5 megabytes in size is just crazy! We don't use files that large for PRINT in the magazine, let alone for display on the web. What happens when you insert images that are properly sized for the web?

This image of the King Air is 1200 x 772 and it properly displays at full size when I click on it.

mceclip0

Rich Melvin

Attachments

Photos (1)

Her you go Rich, it chops it down to 999 pixels.

It's not often necessary to post large images, and I do my best not to if it's not needed.  However, if you take a shot of a detailed item like a locomotive, you frequently want to zoom in and see detailing that you can't see at 1,000 pixels maximum size.

However, it is what it is, it's not a big deal, just something that used to work differently.  My memory may have been to before the forum go the major software upgrade, I don't often have occasion to need that level of detail.

Attachments

Photos (1)
gunrunnerjohn posted:

Her you go Rich, it chops it down to 999 pixels.

Yes...and it has ALWAYS done that! The forum software will resize an image that is too large to display by sizing it down to 999 pixels horizontally. The default was 700 px and I changed it to the max of 999 px a LONG time ago. This is not something new or different!

There is no way you could possibly display a 4,000+ pixel image within the confines of this forum. Your HD monitor only displays 1,920 pixels horizontally.

Rich Melvin

Scrolling Rich, scrolling.  I know that vBulletin software boards allow you to click through and see a full resolution picture.  Obviously, you have to scroll around to see it.

I agree with you that 99% of the time, 1,000 pixels is more than sufficient, there just are times when the extra resolution is actually useful.

BTW, nice airplane!

Since we are showing off aircraft, I shot these with an iPhone 7 Plus on May 15th., 2019.  At Canton - Plymouth Mettetal Airport. I am a member of the Flying Pilgrims Model Aircraft Club and we meet at Mettetal Airport.  The RC Field is about five miles west.

These photos are 4032 x 3024 raw jpeg pixels.

1 EAA223

Mettetal Airport.........

2 Inside hanger

EAA Hanger.....

2 Show & Tell

Show & Tell...... Model airplanes

Gary

Attachments

Photos (3)
trainroomgary posted:

Since we are showing off aircraft...These photos are 4032 x 3024 raw jpeg pixels.

I wasn't "...showing off aircraft..." in my post. I was the quickest one for me to access on my computer at the time, that's all.

Also, if you are uploading for the web, there is  no reason whatsoever to upload an image that is 4032 x 3024 pixels! That is larger than what we would use for a full-page image in OGR magazine!  It's just nuts to upload an image that large. It's going to get resized down to only 999 pixels wide anyway.

Rich Melvin

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
330-757-3020

www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
×