Topic: Pics in threads (Read 19493 times)

Mergingtraffic · « **on:** June 30, 2009, 09:25:05 PM »

I noticed quite a few pics in the body of the message. How do you do that? I know a simple question but I am a simple guy. Any help would be appreciated so I can display some road pics as I post.

SSOWorld · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2009, 09:29:23 PM »

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=help;page=post#bbcref

Code: [Select]

[img width=48 height=48]http://somesite/image.gif[/img] (height and width optional - keep width under 800)

** edit by AgentSteel53: phpBB added the URL tag automatically, unfortunately obfuscating the code example.

Alps · « **Reply #2 on:** July 01, 2009, 10:21:31 PM »

NO ONE does the width tag. We need a reminder out there.

mightyace · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2009, 10:47:30 PM »

Quote from: AlpsROADS on July 01, 2009, 10:21:31 PM

NO ONE does the width tag. We need a reminder out there.

I just make sure my widths are <= 800.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2009, 10:59:38 PM »

I try to keep things down to size ... the shield gallery does go up to 1024 so occasionally if I forget to resize, I post something oversized. Feel free to do this to me.

Or maybe a little bit of this.

deathtopumpkins · « **Reply #5 on:** July 02, 2009, 06:49:23 PM »

Back when I was a mod, when I'd stumble across an extremely oversized picture I'd just resize it for the person with a little note reminding them that there's a size limit, and if they did it again, I'd send them a polite PM. Seemed to help reduce the amount of posting of oversized pics at the time.

Hellfighter · « **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2009, 07:09:31 PM »

I usually post pics in the 1024x768 resolution, I don't go any higher.

Alps · « **Reply #7 on:** July 02, 2009, 09:01:15 PM »

Quote from: Hellfighter on July 02, 2009, 07:09:31 PM

I usually post pics in the 1024x768 resolution, I don't go any higher.

From now on, they go in the 800xwhatever resolution, chum.

Michael · « **Reply #8 on:** July 16, 2009, 06:58:08 PM »

^^ That would be 800×600 for proper scaling of a 1024×768 image.

treichard · « **Reply #9 on:** July 17, 2009, 12:52:14 AM »

If only the width is set, does the height scale proportionately or not at all?

deathtopumpkins · « **Reply #10 on:** July 17, 2009, 04:08:53 AM »

Quote from: treichard on July 17, 2009, 12:52:14 AM

If only the width is set, does the height scale proportionately or not at all?

Yep. Type in 800 for the width and it will automatically make the image 600 pixels high.

getemngo · « **Reply #11 on:** July 27, 2009, 10:47:43 PM »

Maybe this warrants a new thread, but I can't upload any photos using the "attach" feature. When I try, I get this message:

Quote

The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.

The image I'm trying to upload is 480 x 355 pixels and 26.3 kb, so size shouldn't be an issue. I thought there might be some rule that members with <X posts can't perform certain actions. However, Dan tells me no such restrictions are in effect. Any ideas?

Alps · « **Reply #12 on:** July 28, 2009, 07:19:54 PM »

It has been cleaned. Following instructions (contacting an admin) works!

getemngo · « **Reply #13 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:08:12 AM »

Thank you very much!

Truvelo · « **Reply #14 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:23:26 AM »

What resolution monitors are most of us using? Mine is 1680x1050 so large images aren't a problem. I get the impression that some users don't like pictures over 800 pixels wide because their screens are too small.

rawmustard · « **Reply #15 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:59:19 AM »

Quote from: Truvelo on July 29, 2009, 10:23:26 AM

What resolution monitors are most of us using? Mine is 1680x1050 so large images aren't a problem. I get the impression that some users don't like pictures over 800 pixels wide because their screens are too small.

I think in this particular instance it has more to with the formatting of the tables. Most users probably do have resolutions set to over 1000 pixels wide, but the setup of the forum will cause pictures that are wider than the tables to force horizontal scrolling, which is undesirable to most people.

Chris · « **Reply #16 on:** July 29, 2009, 11:36:05 AM »

I use 1280 px.

mightyace · « **Reply #17 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:19:24 PM »

Quote from: Truvelo on July 29, 2009, 10:23:26 AM

What resolution monitors are most of us using? Mine is 1680x1050 so large images aren't a problem. I get the impression that some users don't like pictures over 800 pixels wide because their screens are too small.

My screens are usually set to a wider resolution but I don't always have my browser window full screen because too much stuff just either looks silly or has lots of wasted space.

rickmastfan67 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 29, 2009, 04:19:24 PM »

Well, I've been noticing as of late when people try to use the resize command for the forums to make the images 800x600 when they are originally bigger, the forum lags bad when you try to scroll past them.

One thread here that I recently viewed, had one of those such images, plus it was over 2MB size in size, and that page of the forum lagged really bad when trying to go past it. It was that noticeable.

SSOWorld · « **Reply #19 on:** July 29, 2009, 06:10:32 PM »

how fast is your video card?

rickmastfan67 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 29, 2009, 06:19:11 PM »

Quote from: Master son on July 29, 2009, 06:10:32 PM

how fast is your video card?

I happen to have an ATI 4850 card. And that's pretty new.

SSOWorld · « **Reply #21 on:** July 29, 2009, 06:37:50 PM »

hmm

actually - after further thought - a video card may not matter much unless it was extremely slow. Most cards these days have to be fast to handle Windows Vista. Not sure what contributes to the lagging. If it resizes via HTML or CSS, you'd notice because of distortion. (I'll have to find the source code on it at some point).

rickmastfan67 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 29, 2009, 06:45:59 PM »

Quote from: Master son on July 29, 2009, 06:37:50 PM

hmm

actually - after further thought - a video card may not matter much unless it was extremely slow. Most cards these days have to be fast to handle Windows Vista. Not sure what contributes to the lagging. If it resizes via HTML or CSS, you'd notice because of distortion. (I'll have to find the source code on it at some point).

Well, this is the post that it lags on. It's originally a 3264x2448 image shrunk down to a width of 800 by the forum. It's also a 2.26MB image. I'm thinking the original size has something to do with the lag because of the forum having to resize it with the special line of code.

SSOWorld · « **Reply #23 on:** July 29, 2009, 06:50:16 PM »

actually the lag is only occurring during the loading of the image. WikiCommons has very generous standards for sizing of pictures

(as do most blog and pic sites (not sure about the big boys such as flicker)

Once the pics are all loaded - the lagging stops.

The larger the image, the longer the load time

rickmastfan67 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 29, 2009, 06:51:46 PM »

Quote from: Master son on July 29, 2009, 06:50:16 PM

actually the lag is only occurring during the loading of the image. WikiCommons has very generous standards for sizing of pictures (as do most blog and pic sites (not sure about the big boys such as flicker)

Once the pics are all loaded - the lagging stops.

The larger the image, the longer the load time

Nope. Not here. Whenever I go past the image on that page once every image has been loaded, the page lags bad. This is in IE8.

EDIT: However, I just tested this in FF 3.5.1 and it isn't that bad at all. In fact, it's almost unnoticeable in that browser.

News:

Author Topic: Pics in threads (Read 19493 times)