Picture size rules and limits

[Steam]

As I understand it now the limits on pictures are:

Maximum Picture Size: 640 x 480 pixels
Maximum Picture File Size: 100kb

I am wondering what's the point of having a maximum picture size?
I understand the limit on file size of course, it's hell for slow dialup users.

But if you have a 100kb photo sized 1024 pixels x 685 pixels, like the second one below, that's going to take exactly as long to load via dialup as the first one, also 100kb but sized 640 x 428 pixels.
Exactly the same load time, same file size.
So why the restriction on dimension?

Oh, this picture by the way is the handlebars and headlights of a particularly cool Survival Bike, seen in Bristol.


Heehee! The larger one was edited out. ahaha!

[Finn]

Steam, you're starting to get on my nerves again.

[skelstar]

Is it because the bike has 'anti-volvo' hand grenades?

Steam has a good point.

[Jantar]

File size is one thing, but that second image (now deleted) also mucks up the forum and is simply too large for many screens.

[skelstar]

...mucks up the forum and is simply too large for many screens.

You're kidding? Thats a reason why we can't have big images?

Well i suppose people are still using x8086's.

[edit]

People have to remember there is still alot of users who are stuck on dialup, and having huge pictures inside threads, when trying to find information can be very annoying.

Can't be any more annoying than not being able to see enough detail in a picture.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Personally I think embedding images into a thread should be banned, KB has the function to upload and then you be the nice thumb nail...

Having 30 images download when you don't want them to downlaod is annoying and a waste of bandwidth, even on broadband. 30 @ 100kb is 3mb (even on broadband that can take a minute or so) those on dialup and there are more than a few, downloading 3mb can take 15minutes. Being embedded the all download at once. if they you use the upload feature users get to choose what image they wish to see, download, without choking there system.

The larger images ie;1024x768 (or what ever you have cropped it to) can upset the forum templates and can throw everything skewith...

The rules are so everybody can enjoy the site, not just a select few.

[Joni]

Personally I think embedding images into a thread should be banned, KB has the function to upload and then you be the nice thumb nail...

We looked at banning them a while back, but decided it was not needed, however limiting the size was...

Personally I agree with you!

[Steam]

All right, thanks for the answers.
Seems fair enough, didn't realise people still had screens smaller than 1200 pixels.
Something will need to be done at some point regarding the total number of images in a thread, like the post today of the ride through Tophouse and the Rainbow, with heaps of pictures. Even if they had been the right size they still would have added up to a megabyte or so.
Because then soon you run into problems Nighthawk said two posts up.

If image embedding is ever banned, could we have the attached-image thumbnails a bit bigger?

[James Deuce]

Thumbnails are so PR0n.

[skidMark]

Bandwith is expensive, Spankme has to pay for it from his own pocket.

Not like anybody donates to him these days, yet we treat KB like it's some kind of democracy or something.

[Virago]

Have we still got people bleating about this?

There are a few problems caused by over-sized embedded images.

As mentioned frequently, there are many people still stuck on dial-up. Declaring those people to be be crusty peasants who need to get with the times, is unhelpful - not all members live in the cities, and can't get broadband.

All too often, ridiculously large images are embedded. I removed one image, which was a close-up of an exhaust modification, which was over three times screen width. It was so stupidly large, you could not see the image properly, as you could only view less than 10% of the image at a time.

Embedding images removes the choice of viewing the image. Thumbnails at least give that choice, often an important issue for those viewing from their place of work.

The 640 x 480 pixel size was considered to be a good compromise, which doesn't cause too many problems. If you want to post high-definition photos, upload them as thumbnails. Simple.

[James Deuce]

Have we still got people bleating about this?

There are a few problems caused by over-sized embedded images.

As mentioned frequently, there are many people still stuck on dial-up. Declaring those people to be be crusty peasants who need to get with the times, is unhelpful - not all members live in the cities, and can't get broadband.

All too often, ridiculously large images are embedded. I removed one image, which was a close-up of an exhaust modification, which was over three times screen width. It was so stupidly large, you could not see the image properly, as you could only view less than 10% of the image at a time.

Embedding images removes the choice of viewing the image. Thumbnails at least give that choice, often an important issue for those viewing from their place of work.

The 640 x 480 pixel size was considered to be a good compromise, which doesn't cause too many problems. If you want to post high-definition photos, upload them as thumbnails. Simple.

It's stone age attitudes like this one that make a mockery of the Internet being a useful multi-media delivery system. 640x480 is basically a 13" monitor. No one has one of those and if they do they probably still believe it's under warranty and that the Internet is a series of deadly, deadly tubes.

My rural dwelling mother-in-law has better ADSL speeds than I do and she is nearly 8kms from her exchange and on pair-shared feeds and crappy old cables.

Yes people are still complaining about it. It's silly and dictatorial and totally at odds with just about ant example of a basic PC and Internet connection available in NZ.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

It's stone age attitudes like this one that make a mockery of the Internet being a useful multi-media delivery system. 640x480 is basically a 13" monitor. No one has one of those and if they do they probably still believe it's under warranty and that the Internet is a series of deadly, deadly tubes.

Don't be so sure on that either, there are still heaps of people with old CRT monitors (and many of them are 14" monitor) heck I know of a couple of people still using DOS and Win3.11 on an old 386 adn 486, They have no requiriment to upgrade, and it meets their needs... They don't play gears, and with a minor upgrade of files they can surf the net, email, and write their letters and print them out... what more do they need...??? why spend 3 grand every couple of years for an upgrade.

The point is the though the rules are there so every one can experience the fun that KB is...

[TerminalAddict]

Bandwith is expensive, Spankme has to pay for it from his own pocket.

Not like anybody donates to him these days, yet we treat KB like it's some kind of democracy or something.

expensive for you maybe .. kiwibiker is hosted in america, and goes on your international bandwidth meter

saves spank a truck load I bet

[RiderInBlack]

Personally I would be happier to only have Thumb Nails and then only open up the pics if I want to. Too many large pics take up to much screen space, leading too many pages ta wade through just ta read what is posted around them.