Posted Images

[Grant]

Typically, when images are uploaded to the forum a thumbnail version is created which is displayed in the post. You can then click on this to see the full size version.

The trouble is, the thumbnail version loses some quality due to the JPG compression and even when the quality is set as high as it will go the mere process of resizing and saving the original file causes some loss.

As a trial, I have now changed it so unless an image is larger than 10,000x10,000 pixels in size then no thumbnail will be created but the original uploaded image will be used instead.

This will get resized by your browser to fit inside the window but, it means the quality will not be lost.

Lets see how it goes - any feedback please let me know.

This will only apply to images uploaded from now onwards.

[Stub Mandrel]

Cripes that's big.

I will let you know if it causes issues with my slow broadband, I suspect it will as it can take 30 seconds to a minute to download some full images. Image-rich threads like 'show us your frac' already take up to a minute to load a page with the compressed images. It might also affect mobile users.

I did the opposite and downsized all the images on my own website because it was taking so long to load.

I'm going to upload a fair sized PNG image below and will then report back with the time it takes to display. Hope that's OK? Please delete if it isn't.

2851 by 2315 pixels, 11.7MB.

 

 

[Stub Mandrel]

@Grant OK, I cleared my cache and reloaded this page.

It took 1:04 to load this page with just one full size image.

I tried this one and, with three images, it took two minutes fifty seconds:

 

Obviously cached pages will be OK, but I'm afraid this change will render SGL unusable for me.

 

I'm sure people with fast broadband will love this, but I am stuck with 2.7MB/s

 

Please reconsider!!!!

 

<UPDATE> This morning there aren't many postings with big images, but those that do have them are loading very, very slowly now.

[Stargazer McCabe]

@Grant Without wishing to sound negative or against change, can you register a vote for the previous system being better please ?

Particularly in the "for sale" section the large photos available in the thread makes scrolling through all images a bit of a pain... I can't imaging what the "show us your..." threads will be like henceforth...

[Grant]

I'm keeping an eye on this but probably won't make any changes for a week or so until I get more feedback and can see some trends / patterns.

[Stub Mandrel]

16 minutes ago, Grant said:

I'm keeping an eye on this but probably won't make any changes for a week or so until I get more feedback and can see some trends / patterns.

Ok, Grant.

Please bear in mind this will only be an issue for a users with a slow connection, and will only be apparent when opening threads with one or more big images that haven't been cached so it will manifest as an intermittent slow loading issue that many users may not associate with the change.

It is most unusual for an image-heavy website not to use low-resolution previews. The quality loss I see is more associated with gamma settings than with jpeg compression.

[blinky]

I have to say I have never really noticed any issue with the smaller images and if I want to see the high quality version I know I can click the picture to bring that up.  I do think its going to make browsing on a mobile device a lot harder, although maybe you can have different settings for the mobile version of the site?

[cfpendock]

I may not be alone here.  Living almost in the geographic centre of one of the more advanced countries in the world, the best we can manage is 2MB/sec (on a good day).  To download 10 MB can take a very long time.  For this reason it is rare that I am able to look at the full resolution of posted images.

Chris

[Grant]

I've changed this back for now - the setting is to black and white and I think we need to have some different options for mobile users etc.. and possibly an option to show smaller images for those with less bandwidth - unfortunately that level of refinement is currently not possible.

I will revisit the quality issue when possible though.

[Stub Mandrel]

Thanks Grant,

In theory there should be a way to assess a user's bandwidth.

The problem is that these days with a 100:1 between fast fibre and slow ADSL, one persons 'it loaded in a flash' is another's 'it took three minutes to load'.

My phone is actually faster than my desktop when I have a good 4G signal.

[Mr niall]

I’m with the mk1 version too sorry. I’m on an older iPad and the larger images regularly make it crash and reload as it is (could upgrade the iPad but that would eat into my precious telescope budget...)