Thumbnails in IP4.0 Abysmal

[Makoto]

​I also agree with this. Thats why I assumed lightbox would have it's own "bigger" thumbnail. Sort of like a middle stage.

small thumb in post, larger image in lightbox and full size available upon special request (IE clicking on full image)

​So kind of like the gallery, which has three image sizes 

I do like that idea.

(Then again, just using the gallery more for high quality images would probably be the better option. IPS4 should make seamless integration with the gallery easier after all.)

[SJ77]

​So kind of like the gallery, which has three image sizes 

I do like that idea.

(Then again, just using the gallery more for high quality images would probably be the better option. IPS4 should make seamless integration with the gallery easier after all.)

​Are you suggested that images placed in the forums also show up in the gallery?

That's not a bad idea. There could be a gallery album called forum posts.

[Makoto]

No no, there are still many situations in which people post silly images you may not want in the gallery.

That may actually be a nice feature for some communities but I wouldn't personally use it.

I try and encourage more of my members to post their high quality artwork in the gallery instead of posting them as forum attachments. It might be nice to be able to upload images directly to the gallery and embed them into your post right from the post editor though.

(To be clear I still do think improvements need to be made to regular attachments either way.)

[SJ77]

No no, there are still many situations in which people post silly images you may not want in the gallery.

That may actually be a nice feature for some communities but I wouldn't personally use it.

I try and encourage more of my members to post their high quality artwork in the gallery instead of posting them as forum attachments. It might be nice to be able to upload images directly to the gallery and embed them into your post right from the post editor though.

(To be clear I still do think improvements need to be made to regular attachments either way.)

Touche .. at any rate we still haven't seen basic image functionality in the IPB4 forums working correctly.

[Lukeroge]

There needs to be at least two settings for image scaling in IP.board

One setting for inline thumbnails, and another for the lightbox preview. I want to be able to have small thumbnails, and allow users to see the image in a decent size when they open it in the lightbox. Can't be too hard to make this work! As for the original raw image, that also needs to be an option that we can enable and disable, as on my forum I'd rather just have the thumbnail and a 1024x lightbox image for when people click on it.

Anyway, heres how I'd lay it out in the control panel, thats all we need

Thumbnail Size: [   ]x[   ]px
Preview Size:   [   ]x[   ]px
Keep Original Images: [X] YES [ ] NO

 

[Makoto]

One setting for inline thumbnails, and another for the lightbox preview. I want to be able to have small thumbnails, and allow users to see the image in a decent size when they open it in the lightbox. Really, is it so hard?

​Yes, and I (we?) agree with you. Keep in mind this is still beta. I understand your frustration, but there's no need to get worked/riled up, let's try and keep the discussion mellow and productive.

[SJ77]

There needs to be at least two settings for image scaling in IP.board

One setting for inline thumbnails, and another for the lightbox preview. I want to be able to have small thumbnails, and allow users to see the image in a decent size when they open it in the lightbox. Really, is it so hard? As for the original raw image, that also needs to be an option that we can enable and disable, as on my forum I'd rather just have the thumbnail and a 1024x lightbox image for when people click on it.

​YESSSSSSSSS!

That's a clean description of how it should work.

[Lukeroge]

​Yes, and I (we?) agree with you. Keep in mind this is still beta. I understand your frustration, but there's no need to get worked/riled up, let's try and keep the discussion mellow and productive.

​Sorry, edited my post to be a bit nicer and added more clarification!

[SJ77]

Thumbnail Size: [   ]x[   ]px
Preview Size:   [   ]x[   ]px
Keep Original Images: [X] YES [ ] NO

This would be a god send!

if keep original is no, then full size is same as preview size. If keep original is yes then full size is original image.

Also lightbox can html scale the preview size image.

Then we would finally have a GREAT system.

thank you

[Lukeroge]

Thumbnail Size: [   ]x[   ]px
Preview Size:   [   ]x[   ]px
Keep Original Images: [X] YES [ ] NO

This would be a god send!

if keep original is no, then full size is same as preview size. If keep original is yes then full size is original image.

Also lightbox can html scale the preview size image.

Then we would finally have a GREAT system.

thank you

​If keep original was disabled, then yeah, the "view full" image in the lightbox would just link to the same preview size image displayed in the lightbox itself 

[Logan]

There needs to be at least two settings for image scaling in IP.board

One setting for inline thumbnails, and another for the lightbox preview. I want to be able to have small thumbnails, and allow users to see the image in a decent size when they open it in the lightbox. Can't be too hard to make this work! As for the original raw image, that also needs to be an option that we can enable and disable, as on my forum I'd rather just have the thumbnail and a 1024x lightbox image for when people click on it.

Anyway, heres how I'd lay it out in the control panel, thats all we need

Thumbnail Size: [   ]x[   ]px
Preview Size:   [   ]x[   ]px
Keep Original Images: [X] YES [ ] NO

 

​Agreed, I'd like to see the lightbox preview size be the full size image not the thumbnail that's already visible in posts, otherwise it requires 2 clicks to get to the full image (image + see full size link). Settings similar to those would work for sure.

[Makoto]

The only thing I'd mention is I think the terms "thumbnail" and "preview" might be a bit ambiguous here, as the "preview image" is what you'd be seeing in the lightbox in this scenario.

Maybe instead of "Thumbnail Size" and "Preview Size", it should be "Preview Size" and "Large Size" or "Lightbox Size"? I'm not really sure about the second one, but I think calling the preview images in threads just that might make more sense.

So basically,

• Preview
• Large
• Original (if enabled)

[SJ77]

The only thing I'd mention is I think the terms "thumbnail" and "preview" might be a bit ambiguous here, as the "preview image" is what you'd be seeing in the lightbox in this scenario.

Maybe instead of "Thumbnail Size" and "Preview Size", it should be "Preview Size" and "Large Size" or "Lightbox Size"? I'm not really sure about the second one, but I think calling the preview images in threads just that might make more sense.

So basically,

• Preview
• Large
• Original (if enabled)

​I agree, that is an improvement.

[opentype]

 

Thumbnail Size: [   ]x[   ]px
Preview Size:   [   ]x[   ]px
Keep Original Images: [X] YES [ ] NO​

Exactly!

[Andy Millne]

It doesn't happen often but Charles misspoke. The lightbox shows the full image scaled to the available screen size, the full image link then shows the full image in the browser by itself at full size. There is no option to limit the maximum image dimensions but you can restrict the size of the image by file size so...

• Thumbnails are physically resized to the dimensions you give in the ACP i.e. not just rescaled in the browser *unless* the image you upload is smaller than the defined thumbnail size. In this case there is no point creating a separate thumbnail image as the full size image is already smaller. You will also see a small amount of browser rescaling here if the page view is resized down so that the image displays nice and responsively.
• Clicking the image will load the lightbox with the *full size* image and if this image happens to be bigger than the available screen resolution it is scaled to fit. It doesn't really make sense to specify a size for this image as the available screen size will vary greatly depending on the device used to view it. The bandwidth saving comes because this image is not downloaded unless the viewer requests it by triggering the lightbox.
• The full size button will also show the *full size* image but outside the confines of the lightbox and therefore with no scaling.
• You cannot limit the dimensions of the full size image but can restrict the file size which makes more sense when dealing with disk space/bandwidth considerations

I hope that makes things clearer

[Lukeroge]

It doesn't happen often but Charles misspoke. The lightbox shows the full image scaled to the available screen size, the full image link then shows the full image in the browser by itself at full size. There is no option to limit the maximum image dimensions but you can restrict the size of the image by file size so...

• Thumbnails are physically resized to the dimensions you give in the ACP i.e. not just rescaled in the browser *unless* the image you upload is smaller than the defined thumbnail size. In this case there is no point creating a separate thumbnail image as the full size image is already smaller. You will also see a small amount of browser rescaling here if the page view is resized down so that the image displays nice and responsively.
• Clicking the image will load the lightbox with the *full size* image and if this image happens to be bigger than the available screen resolution it is scaled to fit. It doesn't really make sense to specify a size for this image as the available screen size will vary greatly depending on the device used to view it. The bandwidth saving comes because this image is not downloaded unless the viewer requests it by triggering the lightbox.
• The full size button will also show the *full size* image but outside the confines of the lightbox and therefore with no scaling.
• You cannot limit the dimensions of the full size image but can restrict the file size which makes more sense when dealing with disk space/bandwidth considerations

I hope that makes things clearer

Uhh.. what if we want to allow users to upload any image size and we can handle the resizing/file size on our end? My server has more then enough resources to handle something like that! I'd expect the software to be able to optimise and convert any uploaded images anyway, hence my earlier suggestion. We don't want to limit the resolution of uploaded images, we want to in essence generate two "resized" images from the uploaded image, one for general use and one for the thumbnail, then delete the original from the server if the option to keep it is disabled.

So the process would be:

[user uploads image] > [site generates two resized optimised images and stores them] > [thumbnail size is shown in post] > [user clicks and lightbox opens with preview (need new name?) size] 

in the lightbox there will be a link to show the original full size image if the admin has decided to keep the original files

This also has the advantage of making all images optimised and the same format, while stipping stuff like metadata which can often identify a user and cause all kinds of other issues. It also keeps bandwidth usage and loading times nice and fast while still being flexible.

@Kirito @superj707

[opentype]

 

You cannot limit the dimensions of the full size image but can restrict the file size which makes more sense when dealing with disk space/bandwidth considerations

​I have to clearly disagree. The file size limitation doesn’t solve the problem at all and therefore does not “make sense”.

My user HAVE large images from their cameras. There is nothing I can do about that. I can’t force them to rescale each image before upload, especially with all the mobile devices nowadays. With a file size limit I will only STOP them from uploading in the first place. But i WANT them to upload their image. The images just have to be scaled down to a reasonable size. 

I believe that is a very reasonable request in 2014 and it sounds crazy that with the brand new IPS 4.0 I will going to tell my users: Sorry, no you can’t upload your regular camera images at all. They are too large and my software can’t scale it down for you. 

[Lukeroge]

​I have to clearly disagree. The file size limitation doesn’t solve the problem at all! and therefore does not make sense.

My user HAVE large images from their cameras. There is nothing I can do about that. I can’t force them to rescale each image before upload, especially with all the mobile devices nowadays. With a file size limit I will only STOP them from uploading in the first place. But i WANT them to upload their image. The images just have to be scaled down to a reasonable size. 

I believe that is a very reasonable request in 2014 and it sounds crazy that with the brand new IPS 4.0 I will going to tell my users: Sorry, no you can’t upload your regular camera images at all. They are too large and my software can’t scale it down for you. 

​Not sure if you saw my post just above yours, but I think it explains the issue to them well!

[Andy Millne]

We don't want to limit the resolution of uploaded images, we want to in essence generate two "resized" images from the uploaded image, one for general use and one for the thumbnail.

You already have two images. You have a thumbnail and the full size image. If you are requesting an option for a third image to be created at fixed dimensions between the thumbnail and the full size that is not currently a feature. I don't disagree with your suggestion but it is not as designed. I am clarifying the existing functionality as some are confused.

Speaking personally, I do like the idea of an intermediate image but it is quite a significant change and it is a trade off as others have specifically spoken out against this approach because of the additional disk space used storing a third image.

[Lukeroge]

You already have two images. You have a thumbnail and the full size image. If you are requesting an option for a third image to be created at fixed dimensions between the thumbnail and the full size that is not currently a feature. I don't disagree with your suggestion but it is not as designed. I am clarifying the existing functionality as some are confused.

Speaking personally, I do like the idea of an intermediate image but it is quite a significant change and it is a trade off as others have specifically spoken out against this approach because of the additional disk space used storing a third image.

​That is why I suggested the option of simply not keeping the full size original in my original proposal (I hope you read the post!). I am aware of how your system currently works but it's going to be unsuitable for many users who just want to let users upload anything they want while handling the sizes on their server.

[Andy Millne]

​That is why I suggested the option of simply not keeping the full size original in my original proposal. I am aware of how your system currently works but it's going to be unsuitable for many users.

​It's not a bad suggestion. I'll raise it for discussion but it is unlikely it will make 4.0 at this stage.

[Lukeroge]

​It's not a bad suggestion. I'll raise it for discussion but it is unlikely it will make 4.0 at this stage.

​Ouch. This is going to be an annoying issue for photography forums, for example, where users will want to upload photos from their cameras.

With your system, a site admin has to either store a huge amount of users' high-res photo uploads, or force users to downsample and resize images on their own before they upload them to keep them under a size limit.

With the system proposed in this thread, the admin could set the "preview size"* to a figure like 1024*768 and have all uploaded images resized to that amount so they use minimal space, load fast, and still allow the users to easily upload their holiday photos without any fuss 

* this name is awful, I know

[opentype]

… and it is a trade off as others have specifically spoken out against this approach because of the additional disk space used storing a third image.

​No, with the also requested option to not keep the original, the disk space is significantly reduced. The user uploads a 8 MB picture, and then we get a 50 KB thumbnail and a 250 KB large picture (for example). Perfect!

Keeping the original as option is great however if you have the disk space. Then you can 1.) link to it and 2.) at any time in the future, raise the settings for the large view and generate that from the original image. 

[Soniceffect]

​No, with the also requested option to not keep the original, the disk space is significantly reduced. The user uploads a 8 MB picture, and then we get a 50 KB thumbnail and a 250 KB large picture (for example). Perfect!

Keeping the original as option is great however if you have the disk space. Then you can 1.) link to it and 2.) at any time in the future, raise the settings for the large view and generate that from the original image. 

​This exactly .... Would certainly not want to keep the original at all, as wouldnt many people I wouldnt think as the primary reason for most is the saving of space

[SJ77]

It doesn't happen often but Charles misspoke. The lightbox shows the full image scaled to the available screen size, the full image link then shows the full image in the browser by itself at full size. There is no option to limit the maximum image dimensions but you can restrict the size of the image by file size so...

• Thumbnails are physically resized to the dimensions you give in the ACP i.e. not just rescaled in the browser *unless* the image you upload is smaller than the defined thumbnail size. In this case there is no point creating a separate thumbnail image as the full size image is already smaller. You will also see a small amount of browser rescaling here if the page view is resized down so that the image displays nice and responsively.
• Clicking the image will load the lightbox with the *full size* image and if this image happens to be bigger than the available screen resolution it is scaled to fit. It doesn't really make sense to specify a size for this image as the available screen size will vary greatly depending on the device used to view it. The bandwidth saving comes because this image is not downloaded unless the viewer requests it by triggering the lightbox.
• The full size button will also show the *full size* image but outside the confines of the lightbox and therefore with no scaling.
• You cannot limit the dimensions of the full size image but can restrict the file size which makes more sense when dealing with disk space/bandwidth considerations

I hope that makes things clearer

​Andy,

I want to thank you for this. This is the first time the current plan has been clearly explained in this thread. I think we all finally understand. Much appreciated.

With that being said, I (like so many others) must object to the current plan for full size images. A few years ago the current plan would have been very workable but in the last few years file sizes for images coming from digital cameras, phone cameras, DSLRs and the rest of it, have skyrocketed.  This means the current plan places the burden of resizing on users.  Participation is critical to the success of any community why would we want to make things more difficult for our users? Let's encourage them to upload by making it so they don't have to worry about resizing. (this includes profile pictures)

Thumbnails are physically resized to the dimensions you give in the ACP i.e. not just rescaled in the browser *unless* the image you upload is smaller than the defined thumbnail size. In this case there is no point creating a separate thumbnail image as the full size image is already smaller. You will also see a small amount of browser rescaling here if the page view is resized down so that the image displays nice and responsively.

EXCELLENT!!

Clicking the image will load the lightbox with the *full size* image and if this image happens to be bigger than the available screen resolution it is scaled to fit. It doesn't really make sense to specify a size for this image as the available screen size will vary greatly depending on the device used to view it.

It does make sense because the maximum size set by the admin can be displayed in lightbox and the scaling can still happen as needed. Seems very straight forward to me.

The bandwidth saving comes because this image is not downloaded unless the viewer requests it by triggering the lightbox.

While it's true that this might save some bandwidth, I can assure you that max file size will save much more bandwidth. As an example when I employed the technique on my SMF site, my monthly bandwidth went from almost 5000GB down to 600GB per month. That's HUGE and the effect of max file size on bandwidth cannot be ignored. In 2014 and beyond, I think this is a critical necessity.

 

• The full size button will also show the *full size* image but outside the confines of the lightbox and therefore with no scaling.

EXCELLENT!!

You cannot limit the dimensions of the full size image but can restrict the file size which makes more sense when dealing with disk space/bandwidth considerations

I am not sure in what way you think this makes "MORE SENSE"?? Sure it's easier for the IPB program team, but that's missing the point of good software. Programmers work hard so the lives of users are easier, not the other way around.  Let's make the software do the work so our users don't have to. Otherwise our users will just say hell with it and not upload the image. No user contributions = fail