Size of attachments

Ellery Eskelin · June-22nd-2003, 01:25 PM

Hi Lois,
I tried to attach a picture to one of my posts recently and kept getting a message saying that the photo was too large. It seems there's a current maximum size setting of 42000 bytes. In order to get the photo within that size it became too small to see so I didn't attach it.

I noticed that the majority of photos posted in many of the current threads well exceed this limit. And they seem a reasonable size to look at. Is it possible to return to whatever setting we had previously?

Thanks,
EE

bluenoter · June-22nd-2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

I noticed that the majority of photos posted in many of the current threads well exceed this limit. And they seem a reasonable size to look at.

Ellery, forgive me if you know this, but unless the photos are preceded by "So-and-so has attached this image," they are not attachments from someone's hard drive but rather photos taken from the Internet and posted by means of the IMG function. The latter have no discernible size limit.

For instructions on using the IMG function, see post #3 here.

June-22nd-2003, 02:32 PM

Posting from a url severely limits what you can post--the other jazz boards I frequent are not so stingy, so I often find myself going elsewhere to post something that I would rather have seen here.

Lois Gilbert · June-22nd-2003, 02:48 PM

Chris

explain what you're talking about... I have no idea what you're saying....

Ellery Eskelin · June-22nd-2003, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluenoter

Ellery, forgive me if you know this, but unless the photos are preceded by "So-and-so has attached this image," they are not attachments from someone's hard drive but rather photos taken from the Internet and posted by means of the IMG function. The latter have no discernible size limit.

Hi Bluenoter,
Thanks, I didn't know about that. But I did make a random check and found an image on Dennis' thread (last page) called "Veve of Death and Rebirth" (that says "Dennis Gonzalez has attached this image:"). I saved it to my desktop and checked out the size of it. It seems to be "vev.jpg = 180 KB (183,078 bytes)". That's well over the 42000 byte limit that I'm encountering, and it's not really that large in any event.

Is there something with my settings I'm not aware of that's prohibiting me from posting similar sized photos?? 42000 bytes seems really tiny.

Thanks

bluenoter · June-22nd-2003, 05:24 PM

Lois--Chris was making the same point that Ellery was making. They are requesting that you permit a larger file size than 42,000 bytes in the "Attach File" function (the last item on the Post Reply form).

Ellery--Sorry, I don't know the answer to your question in #5.

June-22nd-2003, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lois Gilbert
Chris

explain what you're talking about... I have no idea what you're saying....

Here is what I am talking about, Lois

bluenoter · June-22nd-2003, 06:36 PM

Lois--see the post by Christiern near the bottom of the page to which Chris provided a link. It's an example of a very large attachment permitted on another board.

(The other pictures on that page are images from the Internet posted by using the IMG function. They are not attachments.)

Ellery and Chris want larger attachments, posted by using the Attach File function, to be permitted.

Lois Gilbert · June-22nd-2003, 06:49 PM

I'm still not understanding. Are you saying your limited by size for images because those images don't look very big to me.. What happens when you try to put a url to an image that is too large. Explain so we can rectify thanks Lois
Thanks Lois

bluenoter · June-22nd-2003, 06:54 PM

Lois--Ellery and Chris want larger attachments than 42,000 bytes to be permitted on Speakeasy. See the last item on the Post Reply form, "Attach file."

Please note: They are not talking about the IMG function. They are talking about the Attach File function.

They are talking about images saved from their hard drive, not URLs taken straight from the Internet.

The image posted by Christiern near the bottom of the page on the other message board is an example of a very large attachment permitted on another board. It is an attachment of a picture saved from his hard drive; it is not an image from the Internet posted using a URL and the IMG function.

Ellery Eskelin · June-22nd-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lois Gilbert
I'm still not understanding. Are you saying your limited by size for images because those images don't look very big to me.. What happens when you try to put a url to an image that is too large. Explain so we can rectify thanks Lois
Thanks Lois

Hi Lois,
When I post messages here on JazzCorner I see the following options along the left side of the page:

Logged in user:
Post subject:
Message Icon:
vB Code
Your Reply:
Options:
Attach file:

With respect that last one, "Attach file" there is the notation:

"Maximum size: 42000 bytes"

Now, 42,000 bytes is tiny. For example, my avatar is larger than that at 136 KB (137,634 bytes) by 95,634 bytes!

This makes me think there is in error with that setting since as I pointed out, other people on Jazzcorner (people other than Chris A and myself it seems) are directly posting images that are larger than 42000 bytes and we can't seem to figure out why they can and we can't.

As Bluenoter pointed out, I'm not talking about posting URLs to images, I'm talking about posting images directly from one's own computer.

Hope that's clearer...

Thanks,
EE

Dennis Gonzalez · June-22nd-2003, 08:39 PM

I see the problem you are talking about, Ellery. On my hard drive, the file "veve.jpg" is only 31 KB, or 9 KB under the max file size. It is also 400 pixels maximum width, which is another spec we have to abide by, so I'm not sure why it indicates 180 KB...Even the original .tif file I shot the .jpg from is not 180 KB!

Lois Gilbert · June-22nd-2003, 08:44 PM

Thanks Ellery for the clarification. I emailed this thread to Mone post haste... I think I had asked him to lower the image size since some of them were so huge esp in the Alley that they went off the screen and you had to scroll and scroll to the right. But I thought everything was cool until I saw Chris A's post.

bluenoter · June-22nd-2003, 08:47 PM

Lois, you are still talking about images from the Internet posted by using the IMG function. Those are the ones that can get so big that they go off the screen to the right. [Edit: They still do. No size restriction was put on them that I can see. If you want Moné to lower their max size, please remember to tell him "IMG function images," NOT attached images.]

But Ellery and Chris are talking about attachments from one's hard drive.

Ellery Eskelin · June-22nd-2003, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis Gonzalez
I see the problem you are talking about, Ellery. On my hard drive, the file "veve.jpg" is only 31 KB, or 9 KB under the max file size. It is also 400 pixels maximum width, which is another spec we have to abide by, so I'm not sure why it indicates 180 KB...Even the original .tif file I shot the .jpg from is not 180 KB!

Hi Dennis,
Hmmm...mysterious...it would appear that perhaps my computer is misreading it's own file sizes? I just upgraded my Mac to OS X but I don't know why that should result in such discrepancies. In any event, the picture that I was trying to post was small and getting smaller as I attempted to cut it down to size and I never was able to get it small enough for the JazzCorner software to accept.

I cain't figgure it...

E

Ellery Eskelin · June-22nd-2003, 10:08 PM

OK here goes a test...

I've downloaded Dennis' veve.jpg to my computer and will now attempt to attatch it to this post. Let's see what happens...

Ellery Eskelin · June-22nd-2003, 10:17 PM

OK, so that worked even though my computer tells me that the file exceeds the limit. So let me try again with the photo I originally tried to post...which my computer tells me is even smaller than the one I just posted...let's see...

Ellery Eskelin · June-22nd-2003, 10:20 PM

OK, so now it appears that my computer (or the JC program?) is mocking me...maybe someone can download that picture of Harold Ashby & Duke (I originally tried posting this in that thread about him and couldn't) and tell me what your computer says is the file size in bytes...I know I ain’t crazy...

Thanks

moneyp · June-22nd-2003, 10:22 PM

I e-mailed Lois to get her opinion on it, but personally, I think the 400 x 400 is just fine. On a standard 1024x768 display, the height limit is more than half the screen. The 42kb limit is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. It all depends on the amount of hard drive space available to store all this crap on the server. It also adds to the bandwidth usage every time a page is loaded, so there are perfectly legitimate (financial) reasons to limit it.

There is no enforceable restriction on sizes allowed by linking (that I've found, at any rate... granted, I haven't looked very hard yet) other than disabling the ability to post links. If Lois e-mails me and says "hey, it's causing bandwidth usage problems" than trust me, I'll start looking real hard.

bluenoter · June-22nd-2003, 10:32 PM

Moné, if Lois ever tells you, "Make the max size of images lower--they're too wide and one has to scroll to the right to see them," she is talking about images posted using the IMG function. She is not talking about attachments from one's hard drive posted using the Attach File function.

Judging from this thread, I don't think that she always distinguishes between the two. (No offense, Lois!)

Dennis Gonzalez · June-23rd-2003, 11:55 AM

I'm sure you guys know that if you originally scan an image at 75 or 70 dpi, you can get a larger picture on the screen? If you scan it at a high resolution, the pixels are closer together and your 400 X400 limit becomes impossibly small, because they are bunched up, trying to give you a great image. A pixel's size does not change, just how many pixels per square cm or inch. The less pixels you can have per square inch or centimeter, the larger your image can be!

So, scan in the lower dpi's, and then .jpg at 90%...your picture will be bigger, and even the look on the screen will be good.

Go to the the "What if..." thread and look at the latest entry, Yusef on drums. That picture is less than 400 X 400 pixels big, but I scanned it at 75 dpi and then 92% .jpg.

Ellery, the veve is scary!