Suggestion to limit file size

[Kerstin Orion]

Would a limit on file size help reduce bandwidth? (We could make it different for the various media like JPG, Flash files, text, etc., if need be.) I know more than once I came across images so huge they wouldn't fit on my screen even when maximized. (I'm running at 1280x1024.)

Sometimes I couldn't even tell what the picture was of, 'cause I could only fit a single appendage on the screen at a time. XD

[Dragoneer]

Would a limit on file size help reduce bandwidth? (We could make it different for the various media like JPG, Flash files, text, etc., if need be.) I know more than once I came across images so huge they wouldn't fit on my screen even when maximized. (I'm running at 1280x1024.)

Sometimes I couldn't even tell what the picture was of, 'cause I could only fit a single appendage on the screen at a time. XD

I agree. A width limiter of no more than, say... 1024 or 1280 would be nominal. Nobody needs to post print-sized copies to FA.

[SnoSno]

you can limit file size, and you can limit image height/width(which is how thumbnails are generated ;3).. wouldn't be hard, just copy and reconfigure the thumbnail generator on upload to resize an image wider than X or higher than Y to X or Y respectively.

[ryokukitsune]

well limiting file size would solve some bandwith problems but i dont think the community at large knows enough about image processing to really make full use of it. we would run into problems that a bunch of BBS have where people can't or dont post decent images because of the way they made the image, be it by wrong format or bad compression.

everyone out here has photoshop or some knock off that came with their scanner but not everone really knows how to use it untill about the 3rd year of experiance even then a lot of people dont know what DPI or resolution means or how they relate to their images.

I've seen pics on Deviantart of some pretty cool stuff but in full view you could see dust mights on the paper because they scanned it at 1200 DPI and didnt reduce or resize at all.

I'll give credit that some pictures require a large file size but i put an imphasis on SOME for the rest of the community if they abuse it they should be warned and then if it contienues some kind of filter should be activated that resizes their images to something more manageable.

if not by force it could be an option so users who really dont know could turn it on and save the sites bandwith as well as the 56k'rs bandwith as well. I dont want to spend an hour downloading the mother of png files ^^; even though i'm on a cable modem rite now i know it can really suck on a 56k heh

[SnoSno]

"well limiting file size would solve some bandwith problems but i dont think the community at large knows enough about image processing to really make full use of it."

They wouldn't need to, not if the server was the one doing the limiting. The server, can easily, say, "If the image is wider than X, resize it to X wide" or "If the image is longer than Y, resize it to Y long." Thus you won't ever run into the problems of people having 2353635 px wide/high images(exaggeration), and at the same time, re-saving the image, you can set a compression ratio for it, so all jepgs could automatically be compressed to 10/15/20%(which won't harm the quality too much). :3

[Alkora]

that's what the thumbnails are for...my script automatically resizes the images...when you upload them, it makes one image that is less then 200 by 200 and it creates an image that is half the origional's size...

[RailRide]

How about including the file size along with the title/artist info in the alt text that appears on mouseover.

That way those who feel that "artistic integrity" requires them to post 350K images can be rewarded by a total lack of pageviews for them.

---PCJ