Jump to content

Videos and Images take the width of the entire text field


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Arthmoor said:

I  think 640x480 is probably too small, which is why I settled on 800x600. Even that, IMO, is too small but everyone else appears happy with that. The 700x700 version didn't really come out quite right.

hah Yep, it is 800, I didn't check before... comparing the above images makes it look like there's a bigger difference between the two if the original was 1000.  Yeah, I think the size that it is right now strikes a good balance.  4:3 is also the right decision.  But yeah, I think anything smaller than what it is right now might be too small.  Once a thread becomes popular enough to get the sidebar I doubt many people will see the full size anyways, as it will be downsized.  Even the 1000 was not too bad, I think the bigger issue was the embedded videos that were at 100%.  Having both at 800x600 as it is right now is pretty much perfect.  It also probably depends on the screen size and resolution people use.  I use 1440p display with 125% scaling, but if I was to use a screen with a height of 1080 pixels or less, or a higher scaling I might keep the browser window wide but with the limited height it might result in those images taking more space than optimal...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arthmoor said:

You need to keep in mind that this isn't an outdated and unlicensed copy of the forum package like they still use on Nexus. IPB has made it clear they're in the process of killing off bbcode support, so you're going to need to get used to doing things the way their editor wants them done.

I  think 640x480 is probably too small, which is why I settled on 800x600. Even that, IMO, is too small but everyone else appears happy with that. The 700x700 version didn't really come out quite right.

I'm just glad to be here brother :)  Adventure on, Phat:highfive:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Just to add some information since i hadn't any problems with images added to my post on day one (and i completely missed that thread). All my pictures are always rezised to 854x480 and around 500-800kb with Image Reziser. Small enough to post in the long threads on bethesda and don't slow down the loading for people with slow internet. And the quality seems always ok for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT below:

There are a few things to consider if you want your images to be sharp and take less space.

First you want to use .jpg file format.  Your images are in 24-bit .png file format, which is great for image quality, but with higher .jpg compression quality you can get visually the same results for less than half the file size.

Second, images posted inside a thread will be resized to 800x600 pixel for their thumbnail.  When downsizing you want your original image to be at least 1.5x and ideally 2x the size to get a good quality result, otherwise your downsized image will look soft.  So if you want the thumbnail to look sharp it is best to post either an image that is not more than 800 wide and 600 high (able to fit inside a 800x600 rectangle) or an image that is at least 1.5x the size of one of the dimensions, so at least 1200 wide or 900 high.

Some examples:

If your original image is 1920x1080 you can either:

  1. resize it to 800x450
  2. resize it to 1280x720
    • since the original is 1.5x by 1.5x larger, if somebody was to click on the thumbnail they will see a high quality sharp image
    • also because 1280x720 is 1.6x by 1.6x larger than the thumbnail that will be generated inside a post, the thumbnail will also be sharp
  3. upload the original size, since it's 2.4x by 2.4x the size of the thumbnail it'll be more than enough for a sharp thumbnail that shows inside a post and whoever views it will also be able to click on it to see the original higher quality image

The images should be compressed to a .jpg file format.

Although not the best tool to do this, Windows Paint is able to both resize images and save to a .jpg file format.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ikonomov said:

Although not the best tool to do this, Windows Paint is able to both resize images and save to a .jpg file format.

I know that could be done with Paint.NET too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2021 at 5:34 PM, Leonardo said:

I know that could be done with Paint.NET too.

Yep.  Although I just did some testing with Paint on Windows 10.  Normally I never use it for anything, but when it comes to image resizing it does a great job, I believe it uses a Bicubic algorithm resulting in excellent quality images.  Also when saving .jpg files the default JPG compression quality seems be of very high quality, a great balance between image size and image quality, I'd say optimal.  It seems Windows Paint might be limited in functionality, but the things that it does, it does well.  Unless somebody already has another image editing software, for resizing and saving .jpg images at least, I'd say Windows Paint will do the job.  I made all the images below using Paint for some comparisons.

853x480 .png 990 KB: image deleted

800x450 .png 868 KB: image deleted

800x450 .jpg 195 KB: more than 4x smaller size while visually the same quality: image deleted

1280x720 .jpg 479 KB: image deleted

1920x1080 .jpg 932 KB: image deleted

2560x1440 .jpg 1.5 MB: image deleted

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, after posting the images above a few observations can be made.  The downsizing algorithm used by the website when doing the thumbnails is doing a fairly good job regardless of the original image size, but the only way to get perfectly sharp images is to upload them at a size smaller than 800x600 to make sure that the thumbnail is the original image.  So if you are happy with an image with the size of 800x600 or smaller then that's the best size to use because the thumbnail inserted into a post will be the sharpest it can be.  If a larger size is desired, it doesn't really matter what size it is.  The thumbnail will look good if a bit soft regardless of the size.

EDIT:  To sum it up, if you are happy with 800x600 or smaller, use that size, otherwise use whatever size you want and make sure to save the images to .jpg file format.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ikonomov said:

800x450 .jpg 195 KB: more than 4x smaller size while visually the same quality:

Not quite, because if you look at the left glove in the 800x450 picture (png) you'll notice it to be a little darker than it is in the 800x450 picture (jpg).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the info. The file size with .jpg is indeed much smaller. I just have to find a way to convert 30-50 pictures together in one step. Ah...when i have some time i will fiddle around. The .png format is just the standard format xbox uses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Not quite, because if you look at the left glove in the 800x450 picture (png) you'll notice it to be a little darker than it is in the 800x450 picture (jpg).

Both gloves on both the .png and .jpg files look about the same on my screen here.  If you are using a non IPS monitor and have both images one above the other when comparing them, the slight difference in the vertical viewing angle can cause a slight shift in color and brightness.  The two images are not identical, at 400% some .jpg artifacts can be spotted if both images are viewed next to each other, but probably most people won't do that :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Rotzi said:

Thanks for all the info. The file size with .jpeg is indeed much smaller. I just have to find a way to convert 30-50 pictures together in one step. Ah...when i have some time i will fiddle around. The .png format is just the standard format xbox uses.

In Photoshop there's an automation tool that allows you to do that.  I also found a way to convert a batch of files online here https://cloudconvert.com/png-to-jpg.  It even allows you to resize the images and specify the compression quality, but I just tested it and the default quality is great, about the same as what Windows Paint is using.  So you can just select your files and then convert and download all the converted images at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2021 at 10:21 AM, ikonomov said:

Yep.  Although I just did some testing with Paint on Windows 10.  Normally I never use it for anything, but when it comes to image resizing it does a great job, I believe it uses a Bicubic algorithm resulting in excellent quality images.  Also when saving .jpg files the default JPG compression quality seems be of very high quality, a great balance between image size and image quality, I'd say optimal.  It seems Windows Paint might be limited in functionality, but the things that it does, it does well.  Unless somebody already has another image editing software, for resizing and saving .jpg images at least, I'd say Windows Paint will do the job.  I made all the images below using Paint for some comparisons.

853x480 .png 990 KB: image deleted

800x450 .png 868 KB: image deleted

800x450 .jpg 195 KB: more than 4x smaller size while visually the same quality: image deleted

1280x720 .jpg 479 KB: image deleted

1920x1080 .jpg 932 KB: image deleted

2560x1440 .jpg 1.5 MB: image deleted

smart tech talk ...  :clap:

Sah: when God was raining brains I was holding a umbrella :fear:

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sah said:

smart tech talk ...  :clap:

Sah: when God was raining brains I was holding a umbrella :fear:

I don't think so, Sah.

I'm happy to insert a picture or other media by using the provided buttons.

How the system handles things like that - I don't care - as long as it works.

Have some coffee: hot or cold - your choice. Enjoy!:hug:

 

156a2243-a4de-4299-bdfa-9f184c7ea5e5.gif

cold coffee1.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

What ikonomov said:

On 6/6/2021 at 8:21 PM, ikonomov said:

Yep.  Although I just did some testing with Paint on Windows 10.  Normally I never use it for anything, but when it comes to image resizing it does a great job, I believe it uses a Bicubic algorithm resulting in excellent quality images.  Also when saving .jpg files the default JPG compression quality seems be of very high quality, a great balance between image size and image quality, I'd say optimal.  It seems Windows Paint might be limited in functionality, but the things that it does, it does well.  Unless somebody already has another image editing software, for resizing and saving .jpg images at least, I'd say Windows Paint will do the job.  I made all the images below using Paint for some comparisons.

What LeBurns read:

On 6/6/2021 at 8:21 PM, ikonomov said:

Yep.  Although I just did some testing with blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah for some comparisons.

 

Personally I been using IrfanView forever and does most of what I need.  For more options I use an old Paint Shop Pro program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LeBurns said:

Personally I been using IrfanView forever and does most of what I need.  For more options I use an old Paint Shop Pro program.

I am the same. My screenshots are all saved using IrfanView. Or I use my 1999 copy of Paint Shop Pro, which has a large manual.

(I do use paint.net for saving textures only.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fenrus said:

I am the same. My screenshots are all saved using IrfanView. Or I use my 1999 copy of Paint Shop Pro, which has a large manual.

(I do use paint.net for saving textures only.)

I've got Paint Shop Pro 7 (includes Jasc Animation Shop), which I bought at Best Buy years ago on sale (regular $99.99).  Issue I had with new PC's is that the program is on CD's and my last work PC (yes I use it at work, for work related stuff ... sometimes) didn't have a CD player.  So we had to use an external CD reader to copy the CD to the network, then copy that to my PC, then run the CD files directly from my hard drive.  But hey, it still works.  And yes, it has a giant manual ... that I've never read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LeBurns said:

I've got Paint Shop Pro 7 (includes Jasc Animation Shop), which I bought at Best Buy years ago on sale (regular $99.99).  Issue I had with new PC's is that the program is on CD's and my last work PC (yes I use it at work, for work related stuff ... sometimes) didn't have a CD player.  So we had to use an external CD reader to copy the CD to the network, then copy that to my PC, then run the CD files directly from my hard drive.  But hey, it still works.  And yes, it has a giant manual ... that I've never read.

as most of us don't until something happens we did not expect:facepalm::lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, after some fiddling around i have settled with IrfanView. I tried several programs but this has at least a batch conversion (and german language) and makes it easy enough to convert a lot of pictures at once. I still use ImageReziser for the first step to reduce size because it is one click handling. And then i convert them to jpg. Thanks to all here for the good advice. :clap:

I did some comparisons but couldn't find any significant difference in quality. This is converted to jpg with around 80kb.

2051585064_Fallout42021-06-1312-59-33.thumb.jpg.99cde5698cc168f7529b4de96039b7f7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...