John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

I'd like to ask if there is a way to post pictures at full size (700 pixels wide of course).
Like the way it used to be about 2 years ago. Personally I got a bit dissapointed when the update occured that made pictures smaller and had to click on the smaller preview to open. A bit late to be making this comment I know.. but I'm just curious.

This is just my opinion, but I greatly prefer the way pictures used to be before. I.e. in Lou's construction diary. For me it makes things clearer and faster. I'm more of a visual person myself and just seems easier and more convenient to see the picture at normal size and just keep on scrolling down.

Anyways I just love seeing the larger pictures immediately, that's it basically

Cheers!
Vakis

sure Vakis - but it saves data costs which, as you can imagine, is high for this site with so many pictures per page.

Yeah, I understand..

Can't imagine how heavy it must be for all these images and files to be on this forum..

But anyways, I just had to get it off my chest, I was wondering why this had happened..

Cheers John,

Vakis

I agree.

Before, you could view the full size pix (max 700px wide) in the topic. Now it load a thumbnail, but using the ORIGINAL file (the 700px wide pict, just resized for smaller view... ).
John, if you look at the set-up of the board you'll prolly have a parameter which defines the inline gfx dimensions. Just make it the same as the max upload dimensions (or bigger). That way we don't have to click on each picture to get the original size.

btw. Lou's topic has pictures hosted externally, not on John's board. That's a good solution to have bigger in-line pictures.

cheers, happy newyear!

It will change with all further picture posts.
I hope

i actually like the smaller images which are set to a standard size and only clicking on the ones i want to view... it's really good if you are using a mobile device - it takes a lot less time to load, plus if your phone/tablet supports zooming, a lot of times you don't even need to load the full image.

EDIT:

ok - the 800px thumbnail width seems to be a good balance...

gullfo wrote:i actually like the smaller images which are set to a standard size and only clicking on the ones i want to view... it's really good if you are using a mobile device - it takes a lot less time to load, plus if your phone/tablet supports zooming, a lot of times you don't even need to load the full image.

That's kinda of my point earlier, it doesn't change the loading time since the ORIGINAL picture is downloaded but just resized on the client side.

John Sayers wrote:It will change with all further picture posts.
I hope

Cool, the change will effect immediately

Ro wrote:That's kinda of my point earlier, it doesn't change the loading time since the ORIGINAL picture is downloaded but just resized on the client side.

actually, it doesn't download the original. the small thumbnail is much smaller (in some examples - 12-20Kb) than the equivalent full size (in some examples, 120-250Kb). so it takes more CPU power on the server to preprocess the images if they are dynamically generated, or about 15% more storage because you have both the thumbnail and original, but on the throughput from the server to the client, it will be significantly lower if you're not viewing the full size images.

going with the 800px as thumbnail images will be 25Kb-100Kb and full images from 70Kb-550Kb (for example). this will consume roughly 100-500% more bandwidth than the smaller thumbnails plus roughly 25-30% more disk space.

you can verify this behavior by inspecting the thumbnail versus the full image and viewing the page source to see the different commands used to display the thumbnail versus the full image. the good performance is due to pre-caching the full image on the server to allow it to stream once the link is clicked (and you can see this behavior on photo images and a slow connection because the image not being cached locally takes time to load and render, whereas if it was the original and simply sized differently, the response would be almost instantaneous and the smaller image would have a skewed appearance due to size tags and the web clients ability to display alternative sizes).

(just a note: i build global enterprise systems for a living and we deal with exactly this type of issue on a regular basis since the latency, throughput, and storage costs + end user performance expectations are a complex balance...) one thing i can recommend strongly if you want killer performance for static page assets (images, video, etc) - Akamai. but it's more costs and some additional DNS trickery...