Image setting options are TOO minimal.

[SJ77]

​As someone who also runs an image-heavy board, I'm also obviously concerned about image settings and bandwidth.  However, you'll need to be more specific on what settings are missing.  For example, many of the settings are available, but in another location in the IPS 4 ACP.

There are:

• Advanced image settings in System > Files that covers JPG Quality, PNG Compression, and Image Suite
• Maximum image size in Settings > Postings
• Per group settings for uploads including total maximum storage space and maximum space per content
• IP.Gallery image settings for large, medium, small, thumbanil, and square 

The ONLY setting that I find truly missing is the # of images per post.  As such, you'll need to provide more actionable and concrete details on what features are missing.  

 

​Hi Joel,

I am not sure if you haven't read the entire thread or if it simply wasn't explained clearly enough to easily follow ,  but sure thing. I will address this. 

1.  We need the option to never serve to users the full sized image. (serve re-sampled image only before click and after click)

2. Need TWO levels of image sizes, one for thumbnails and another for full size. Without 2 settings, site owner gets screwed on bandwidth no matter what. If you don't understand this, then I don't believe you have a site that deals with images.  In case anyone doesn't get this I will explain why ultimately site owners get screwed:

Scenario A: (small "re-sampled" thumbnails), page loads nicely but most users will be forced to click thumbnails to load full sized "NOT re-sampled" images. Bandwidth DEATH!

Scenario B: (Large re-sampled images in post ), Every page load requires all large images to load with the page. sure because they are re-sampled it's better than full size loading but each image will still be ~70KB. Even though they are "re-sampled" many of these 70KB images on one page is immediate bandwidth death. (not to mention the page won't load). Also we haven't even considered that users can still click for full size "NOT re-sampled" images! UGH!!

Why would TWO re-sampling options fix this disaster:
Scenario C (not currently possible): (Small re-sampled thumbnail in post & Larger re-sampled image after click) Now your page loads nicely due to small thumbnails in post and ton's of clicks won't kill bandwidth due to larger images also being re-sampled. This is not something new, it's how every forum has handled images for a long while. Why should new software take us back to 1999? This is a basic need for image management within a forum.

3. Need option to keep or delete original image. This will help folks with limited overall disk space.

4. Nice to have in post options like "download" count under thumbnails. (was in ver 3.4.6 but is now missing). Also the ability to arrange thumbnails horizontally to avoid tons of scrolling.

5. Nice to have option to turn off light box for those who would rather just enlarge the image right in post without fancy JS overlay.

Again you could always reference the first few posts to understand this better or at least view the image I uploaded in the first post.

Now I will address your list.

• Advanced image settings in System > Files that covers JPG Quality, PNG Compression, and Image Suite
  • Near worthless without an option for thumbnail & full sized. why re-sample if not for saving bandwidth? As shown above can't save bandwidth without two levels of application.
• Maximum image size in Settings > Postings
  • This was put in place with the idea being around the ability to make the threads look pretty but almost no thought put into serious image management. We need resampled thumbnails & resampled fullsized images!!!
• Per group settings for uploads including total maximum storage space and maximum space per content
  • GREAT!
• IP.Gallery image settings for large, medium, small, thumbnail, and square
  • 100% MOOT! This thread is not at all about Gallery. Nothing here at all, whatsoever, is about Gallery. This thread is about image management within the forums.  (which currently is severely under equipped for forum image management.)

 

TL:DR; We need resampled thumbnails & resampled fullsized images!!!

[SJ77]

Clear question for the software dev team: I have many pages in my forum with over 200 images on a single page. How am I supposed to control bandwidth without image re-sampling AND proper thumbnails?

​Would anyone like to take a stab at answering this?

[3DKiwi]

Suggest you stick with 3.4.7 as I'm doing until at least IPB version 4.1. I'll then make a decision whether I stick with IPB or move to Xenforo. Now that it has a gallery module I am no longer tied to running IPB to having an integrated forum and gallery.

[chilihead]

Suggest you stick with 3.4.7 as I'm doing until at least IPB version 4.1. I'll then make a decision whether I stick with IPB or move to Xenforo. Now that it has a gallery module I am no longer tied to running IPB to having an integrated forum and gallery.

​Yeah it's too early to upgrade a 3.4.7 forum that is thriving, no need for issues, the future looks good, but I'll probably be waiting at least 6 months. I hope not, we'll have to see how it progresses.

I like a lot of the stuff in the Feature Plan but I feel that is pretty far away, like, next year stuff.

[SJ77]

I like a lot of the stuff in the Feature Plan but I feel that is pretty far away, like, next year stuff.

​The stuff in this thread haven't been addressed at all by the Feature Plan!   (nor by anyone on the IPB leadership team anywhere on this website for that matter)

[JarredB]

​The stuff in this thread haven't been addressed at all by the Feature Plan! (nor by anyone on the IPB leadership team anywhere on this website for that matter)

​

We're not opposed to adding additional settings as needed and it seems apparent further review is needed, so I will open an internal item on it.

​As Lindy said, they will be reviewing it in appropriate time. To that extent, the need for more options has been addressed. As they have many other things to review amongst preparing for a full release I think it would be reasonable to give them more than several days to produce a result. They won't officially say what they will be adding until they have had their discussions, after which the Feature Plan may receive new information, but not before.

[SJ77]

​

​As Lindy said, they will be reviewing it in appropriate time. To that extent, the need for more options has been addressed. As they have many other things to review amongst preparing for a full release I think it would be reasonable to give them more than several days to produce a result. They won't officially say what they will be adding until they have had their discussions, after which the Feature Plan may receive new information, but not before.

​Fair and well made point. It's a struggle not to be anxious though from my end of the table

 

[Jυra]

No max images per post? Shock image spam go, go, go!

[SJ77]

Let's suppose IP teams decides they don't give a rat butt about image management. Is there even a 3rd party option available to solve the aforementioned dilemma?

I really need someway to serve images without destroying my server

[3DKiwi]

Is there even a 3rd party option available to solve the aforementioned dilemma?

​Not that I'm aware of and certainly not for version 4. Stay on 3.4.7 like I'm going to do and then see what happens with 4.1.

[Adlago]

I marvel at your desired software to do everything. And where is your thought and practice?

[不中用]

adding to the problem

bug report :

http://community.invisionpower.com/4bugtrack/rc1-this-site-image-stretched-r2942/

 

The fix to this problem took away the total proportion functionality (scale function) .. no respect to keep proportions, no locked proportions .. it did work before (except certain larger width pictures) .. this has to change again, but then properly fixed ..

 

.

[SJ77]

I marvel at your desired software to do everything. And where is your thought and practice?

Being able to properly serve images within a paid forum solution seems like asking for "everything" to you? I could understand if I was asking for watermarks, auto rotation etc but basic functionality?? As is I won't even be able to run IPB without shutting down my website 80% of the month. Wanting it to work all month is asking for everything?  Yes, sir I would like to be able to actually use the software, sorry if that's an outlandish request.

 

 

 

 

[Lindy]

 

Being able to properly serve images within a paid forum solution seems like asking for "everything" to you? I could understand if I was asking for watermarks, auto rotation etc but basic functionality?? As is I won't even be able to run IPB without shutting down my website 80% of the month. Wanting it to work all month is asking for everything?  Yes, sir I would like to be able to actually use the software, sorry if that's an outlandish request.

​To be clear, "properly serving images" at the level you're implying would typically involve using a CDN. You have your own server and you're wanting to make the most of that so I understand completely where you're coming from, but there is no replacement for proper content distribution.

With that said, there is a very active internal hit on introducing a few image options such as resampling and images per post. This would not make it to final, so if this is critical to you, I'd suggest holding off on upgrading until additions are made. Once we have something finalized, I'll be happy to update you. 

[SJ77]

 

With that said, there is a very active internal hit on introducing a few image options such as resampling and images per post. 

​You just made my heart explode with joy!!!!!!!!!  2 levels hopefully? (a thumbnail and a full size resample) There is nothing I want more I will kiss a stranger if this happens.