Gallery image file size reduction on upload

[SeanJ66]

Hi there

Is there an option or plugin available to reduce the size of the original image uploaded to the gallery, on upload? As done with the attachments.

I understand why an original is kept but in the case of my forum there is no need for an original image and it will just take up more space unnecessarily.

Thanks in advance

[bfarber]

The original image is always the original image - there is no (built in) option to reduce its filesize or otherwise alter that image file. If thumbnails ever need to be rebuilt down the road, or you decide to add a watermark, the original image is necessary to rebuild those new copies that are served to users.

[Giray]

On 6/20/2019 at 8:20 AM, bfarber said:

The original image is always the original image - there is no (built in) option to reduce its filesize or otherwise alter that image file. If thumbnails ever need to be rebuilt down the road, or you decide to add a watermark, the original image is necessary to rebuild those new copies that are served to users.

I've been trying to figure out which of the many threads to use to put a final cap on the issue, this is the lucky one 😇

We all face the same problem, large photo uploads = server storage.

Do we agree that there is currently no way for IPS (or a plugin) to resize uploaded images on the fly (e.g. using imagemagick) to a new original size that we determine? I will never need to work with a 5000 x 5000 image and yet, it seems, unless I'm missing a setting, that even if you set the posting/maximum image to save setting at a lower value, the image/file does not resize?

Anyone?

Thanks!!!!

[bfarber]

1 hour ago, Giray said:

Do we agree that there is currently no way for IPS (or a plugin) to resize uploaded images on the fly

Yes, there is no built in way to reduce the size of the original image.

[Giray]

1 hour ago, bfarber said:

Yes, there is no built in way to reduce the size of the original image.

Thanks. So what does the maximum image dimensions to save dialog do?

*edit*

I'm confused. I just found this 2016 answer from @Rhett:

 

[Giray]

Okay, I think I get it. If you upload a large image, IPS keeps that original image in the file directory. It then, however, only delivers (IPS calls it 'save') the image to the size specified in posting. So, in essence, you're keeping two images, the original (any size) PLUS the resized one? The question now is (and I have seen other threads on this) how to go about resizing larger images after the upload? The bottom line is that there is no way to easily get users to upload any size they want and then readjust. We're basically asking our users to be the resizers... Not great, but I think I get it now.

[Giray]

So I just tried something and it worked 🥴

I uploaded some 20mb jpgs; nice and big. I then went into cPanel File Manager and downloaded them. I put them through GraphicConverter, reduced them to my desired max size, reuploaded them, overwrote the file, changed permissions from 644 to 666, and nothing is broken. It takes some work, but if I do it as a batch once a week, it's doable. Unless someone tells me that this is a dangerous scheme, this is how I plan on keeping my image files smaller. So I will let people upload whatever they want (obviously within reason) and then do the crunching in batches once a week.

Voilá !

[Giray]

Not done.

This is the field description under 'Maximum image dimensions to save' in Posting/General:

 

If an image larger than the these dimensions is uploaded, it will be resized to no bigger than the dimensions and the original image will be discarded. Resizing images reduces their quality so it is normally best to leave this unlimited unless your community uses a lot of images and you want to reduce disk space use.

 

So which is it? Is the image resized and discarded or not? From testing, no resizing and discarding is happening. 

[bfarber]

Ok so there's a few things here.

#1 the original topic is about Gallery, not images attached to posts. This is a big difference.

With Gallery, the original image is always kept. It is not resized at all. With images attached to posts, the original is kept however it may be resized to certain image dimension constraints via the setting you have highlighted.

#2 the setting you reference is based on image dimensions, not on file size. You could theoretically have an image that is 5000x5000 but only 1MB in filesize, and an image that is 500x500 but is 10MB in size. The setting you reference allows you to implement maximum image dimensions that any attached image will be downsized to, but this is not a filesize guarantee.

 

Hopefully that clears things up, but primarily...my replies have been in regards to Gallery, since that's what the OP was asking about.

[Giray]

7 hours ago, bfarber said:

Ok so there's a few things here.

#1 the original topic is about Gallery, not images attached to posts. This is a big difference.

With Gallery, the original image is always kept. It is not resized at all. With images attached to posts, the original is kept however it may be resized to certain image dimension constraints via the setting you have highlighted.

#2 the setting you reference is based on image dimensions, not on file size. You could theoretically have an image that is 5000x5000 but only 1MB in filesize, and an image that is 500x500 but is 10MB in size. The setting you reference allows you to implement maximum image dimensions that any attached image will be downsized to, but this is not a filesize guarantee.

 

Hopefully that clears things up, but primarily...my replies have been in regards to Gallery, since that's what the OP was asking about.

Great explanation, much appreciated.

#2 I had understood, no problem.

#1, why? 😢 I mean I get it, one can assume that at some point, the larger image could be useful to have (recropping, etc), but for sites with thousands of gallery images, it would me mission-critical to have the ability to reduce the size (and in extenso the weight). As I mentioned above, I have now found an in-elegant workaround (download, resize, reupload). That does seem to work. But I do believe that this is a key core functionality. Question, considering imagemagick is loaded and accessible, what's preventing the limiting possibility considering many other admins are as concerned with space as I am.

Again, thanks for the response! Always appreciated.

[ABGenc]

Although I have been using Gallery for a long time I have just realised that the original file was kept and the dimensions set in ACP are only used to rebuild thumbnails and display. This is sad for me cause I do not have so much resource in terms of disk space and since photos have started to be around 10-15 MB each this has an adverse effect on my storage. 

Other than @Giray's workaround, any way to limit the uploaded original file size  ?

[LoPoSt]

+1 I also think that there should be a setting for resizing the original size.

[kmk]

+10000 please 

[Cruizin]

100000 please!

[orp]

yes, this is absolutely insane, i wondered why i was running out of hosting space so much faster after migrating from vBulletin 3.x to IPB 4!

i honestly took it for granted that a basic common-sense image/file size management feature like this would "just work".

[Cruizin]

Bump to keep this topic alive

[sound]

 

On 9/24/2019 at 2:27 AM, bfarber said:

Ok so there's a few things here.

#1 the original topic is about Gallery, not images attached to posts. This is a big difference.

With Gallery, the original image is always kept. It is not resized at all. With images attached to posts, the original is kept however it may be resized to certain image dimension constraints via the setting you have highlighted.

#2 the setting you reference is based on image dimensions, not on file size. You could theoretically have an image that is 5000x5000 but only 1MB in filesize, and an image that is 500x500 but is 10MB in size. The setting you reference allows you to implement maximum image dimensions that any attached image will be downsized to, but this is not a filesize guarantee.

 

Hopefully that clears things up, but primarily...my replies have been in regards to Gallery, since that's what the OP was asking about.

 

A possible solution to the gallery issue...

Invision could separate the storage of the original gallery images from the resized gallery images - they are currently all mixed in

If all the original gallery images were stored in stand alone directories, then you could deal with the storage issue a lot easier.

You could now just backup this directory/s and then if needed can remove or move this directory off site with no effect on the day to day running and use of the gallery.

If in the future it is ever needed to rebuild images etc then you can just simply re-upload or move back the original images to the directories.

 

[kmk]

56 minutes ago, sound said:

 

 

A possible solution to the gallery issue...

Invision could separate the storage of the original gallery images from the resized gallery images - they are currently all mixed in

If all the original gallery images were stored in stand alone directories, then you could deal with the storage issue a lot easier.

You could now just backup this directory/s and then if needed can remove or move this directory off site with no effect on the day to day running and use of the gallery.

If in the future it is ever needed to rebuild images etc then you can just simply re-upload or move back the original images to the directories.

 

Solution for Videos and Images storage, if this happened, I will take the IPS Cloud immediately 

[bfarber]

1 hour ago, sound said:

 

 

A possible solution to the gallery issue...

Invision could separate the storage of the original gallery images from the resized gallery images - they are currently all mixed in

If all the original gallery images were stored in stand alone directories, then you could deal with the storage issue a lot easier.

You could now just backup this directory/s and then if needed can remove or move this directory off site with no effect on the day to day running and use of the gallery.

If in the future it is ever needed to rebuild images etc then you can just simply re-upload or move back the original images to the directories.

 

I would be interested in exploring separate storage options for the original file upload. For instance, storing the original Gallery image in Amazon Glacier could be a good solution for some image heavy sites, because it is cheaper storage at the expense of being a bit slower as the files are not expected to be accessed often.

[Giray]

3 hours ago, bfarber said:

I would be interested in exploring separate storage options for the original file upload. For instance, storing the original Gallery image in Amazon Glacier could be a good solution for some image heavy sites, because it is cheaper storage at the expense of being a bit slower as the files are not expected to be accessed often.

Agree on possibility of a separate storage site. But, I believe, most of us would simply like the ability to upload/resize automatically to ensure that our galleries remain manageable. That's, I think, the absolute priority. Thoughts?

[bfarber]

9 minutes ago, Giray said:

Agree on possibility of a separate storage site. But, I believe, most of us would simply like the ability to upload/resize automatically to ensure that our galleries remain manageable. That's, I think, the absolute priority. Thoughts?

I've shared my personal thoughts on it before already. From a technical standpoint, not storing the original file will introduce problems down the road (i.e. if you need to change the watermark on your images, as one example).

That does not mean this is an absolute "no" to the suggestion, nor that my opinion is the only one. My opinion, however, has not changed.

[pauldaytona]

I'm happy to open a new topic if that is needed, but I think it fits here.

 

My forum has older users, who have a problem uploading images because the size limitation. We never cleanout posts or images, and the forum started in 2004  with IPB 1.37 or so. 

To not get a huge storage bill, there is a limitation on size in kb, enough to have great looking web pictures. But my members can't learn how to first resize images before upload. So they give up. What is more, I see the same persons upload a lot of images on Facebook, why?, it's made easy there. 

Why can't IPB resize images before they store it? Let users upload what they want, resize it on the server, save the resized picture and it costs me not to much storage and I keep my members.   A few admin control panel settings for max kb, pixels to store. So the ones with unlimited or free storage can set it not to resize anything if they like. 

 It looks like because some forums don't allow storage of pictures at all, then we should live with a for us bad solution. 

 

 

[LoPoSt]

3 hours ago, pauldaytona said:

It looks like because some forums don't allow storage of pictures at all, then we should live with a for us bad solution. 

We are one of them who for this reason does not use the gallery application.

[jcdesign]

Do not change the original image size, because there are members here who selling digtal images with subscriptions And for a sharp crispy original size is very important to deliever the best quality.

[Giray]

15 minutes ago, jcdesign said:

Do not change the original image size, because there are members here who selling digtal images with subscriptions And for a sharp crispy original size is very important to deliever the best quality.

It would be a choice, not mandatory. You would, in a perfect world, have the opportunity of reducing all file sizes IF YOU WANT. If you don't want, you don't change. Most of us don't want to keep 30 mb images in our file system.