Possible Amendments to Board Guidelines - Photo Limitations

[Hendikins]

Quite honestly, I don't see the need for a fixed limit, as long as the number of images is stated in the thread title. Simple solution, saves multiple threads, and you know what you're in for before you click that link.

[ferro]

i use screen resolution 1280*1024 on my screens (yes i usually run 2)
TV output depends on if im using the hdtv or my normal tv.

image sizes id rather use 1024/768

image resolution should not be restricted mor the size of the image in MB say max of 1.5-2mb
for those who are still either on dialup, idsn, or on shaped broadband if they have gone over (not that i doubt any of us would)

more so not sure if this is covered else where but image extensions what ones are not accepted by the board,
as i usually use cinema 4d for image editing

[Fleet Lists]

Quite honestly, I don't see the need for a fixed limit, as long as the number of images is stated in the thread title. Simple solution, saves multiple threads, and you know what you're in for before you click that link.

I dont agree with that.

There should be a limit - it should be remembered this is NOT a photo gallery.

Once the Bus Australia photo gallery is working again (let us hope it is soon) large quantities of photos should be placed there where a user can select the photos he wants to look at whereas here a user MUST load all photos even if only wants to look at one of them.

[Swift]

I am on dial up and I have no objection to double ing the limit as long as there is a limit at the end of the day.
It will give me an excuse to get up off the computer while they load.

[tbc1983]

Ditto

I'm also a dial-upper and have no qualms over 10 pics/thread; personally, this is easier than splitting it up over numerous threads, eg. 5 pics over 2 threads. This a lot of piss-farting around when going back and forth while navigating online and that's assuming your browser doesn't time out. When the worst comes to the worst in terms of viewing a gazillion pics in one thread and they time out, there's always F5 and there's always 'Show Picture'.

Trust me, I'm used to dial-up; I've downloaded 50 meg files on my dial-up connection, which is why I love MS Paint and searching for templates; they give me something to do while my computer is slowly downloading a heavy file.


Cheers!

[Ken]

It looks like the consensus is for doubling the current 5 pics per thread to 10, and increasing the width from 800 to 1024 pixels.

I have started a new topic containing a poll for people to vote for their preferred option. Refer to
http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewt ... 17&t=31889

[jb17kx]

I also agree, as a broadband user, with the doubling of the photo quantity limit - though I cannot help but feel this would not be so much of an issue of some select users (and only one or two) sought to improve their skills at culling their image collection. Either way I am not fussed about the number of images but rather the quality.

The issue I care much more about is that of photo size. I still use a 1024x768 display, which means that the text area of the forum page is for me only 720 pixels wide. This not a problem for photos that are displayed inline - using [img] tags. Firefox automatically scales larger images to this 720px width.

The problem comes with attachments - these are not scaled and so I have to scroll across to see the whole image. I dislike doing this.

Accordingly I have voted for 10 photos at max width of 800px. My idea though would be for 720px set as the max width for attachments - which also helps to minimise server storage use - and 1024px set as the limit for images hosted elsewhere.

[howlerbus]

jb17kx, I agree with you totally...

[Newcastle Flyer]

Another thing to consider is those broadband users that may be over their monthly limit, and that are reduced to dial up speeds or similar.

[gld59]

Which I suppose is added encouragement for people to describe photos as usefully as possible, so those "on a diet" can if necessary turn off images in the browser and pick and choose the images to load manually. (I know, most people already do give pretty good text descriptions - I'm just trying to reinforce this good behaviour.)

gld

[CM Hino]

Hi Ken and admin's
I was wondering if you could do a test run on the new limits so poeple can see how this will affect them

For eg have one post with 10 pictures at 800x600
and have another post with 10 pictures at 1024x768\
Maybe this might need to be tested with attached picture and pictures that come from Imageshack or etc?

Myself I am on adsl and it should not worry me but I would still like to see how long it takes to open up a page.

Thanks

[Ken]

Hi Ken and admin's
I was wondering if you could do a test run on the new limits so poeple can see how this will affect them

That sounds like a good idea to me.

If anyone wishes to post a 'test' thread in the photo section with one of the above mentioned proposed limits they are more than welcome.

Simply prefix the post with 'Test 10 pics 1024 pixels wide' or something like that.

[Newcastle Flyer]

Would it be an idea to create another forum on the board for these test threads, so it doesn't clutter up the photo forums?

[howlerbus]

And have threads in the test forum automatically deleted after 7 days...

[Newcastle Flyer]

Also so more people notice it, is it possible to have your poll thread as a global announcement, similar to what T1200 has done?

[Rail Bus]

Personaly, I would have been happy with a limit of 6 pics maximum per thread, but have no objections to the limit of 10. Perhaps the software/program can be altered to only allow a mximum of 10 pics? Also, I agree with size of 1024 x 768 as "standard" and maximum as hi-res photos are usualy over 2.5mb un-compressed, and do take a while to download. I resize most photos I get from websites or friends to 1024 x 768 if greater than this size. As with the avatar size of 100 x 100 maximum, I'm sure the limits can be done. Obviously if users such as The Inspector wish to keep posting pics to no more than 800 x 600, then that is their choice, however it often limits the detail one can gain from an image. However on the same token, I have noticed that a lot of pics hosted by other websites (such as Fotopic) and previously shown on this board at 800 x 600, are now showing at around 640 pixels. Also members should try to make their scanned or re-sized pic no smaller that 800 pixels wide. This is quite acheivable when scanning simply by scanning the photo with around 400 dpi in the image. Resizing to around 1024 x 768, or 800 x 600 (or similar) is easily done by using a free program such as Irafnview, which I have used for some years, and find very good.

I also agree with the fact that most users would be on some form of Broadband connection, so therefore the download time of pics is now somewhat irrelevant. as Swift584 has suggested, it does make you get up and walk away from the computer for a few minutes while the pics download. I used to do the same thing when I was reliant on dial-up.

Just some thoughts.

[crazyknightsfan]

I would prefer 800px wide photos, 1024px results in the dreaded horizontal scrolling. Luckily Opera has a zoom feature so I can actually zoom out to 80% or 50% to see the whole photo. IE doesn't have that option.

[CB80]

I like the 10 pics at 820px wide option.

[Carlisle 8]

Thank you BPQ, for posting your test thread. The size of your photos is entirely acceptable and the time time taken to download 10 is no problem. I enjoyed your actual photos, too, so don't go deleting them!

The 1000px specimen in Herbert's 12 May posting is good, too.

I am totally lacking in experience in playing with different resolutions. I'm entirely happy with the 1680 x 1050 resolution setting which was installed on my computer when I purchased it. I do realise that people with smaller computers may need smaller photo resolutions and I'm not arguing that their needs should be ignored. I'm just giving positive feedback regarding the two sizes mentioned above.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the miniature photos that a few people post. It would be really nice if they would post to a larger size and give viewers the full enjoyment of seeing their photos in a size which allows a full appreciation.

[Newcastle Flyer]

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the miniature photos that a few people post. It would be really nice if they would post to a larger size and give viewers the full enjoyment of seeing their photos in a size which allows a full appreciation.

Wouldn't clickable thumbnails solve that? As stated before thumbnails (depending on host) have an advantage over links of previewing a picture.

[CM Hino]

Hi all
After seeing the 2 post with 10 pictures one at 1024x768 and the other at 820x600
http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewt ... 10&t=31954
http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewt ... 10&t=31955
I would perfer the 800x600.
No scrolling to see all of the picture.

[Ken]

Wouldn't clickable thumbnails solve that? As stated before thumbnails (depending on host) have an advantage over links of previewing a picture.

I hate clickable thumbnails with a passion so I can't see it happening!

For this forum I don't think they are appropriate anyway.

The free sites generally produce popups from thumbnails anyway which greatly annoy myself and 99.9% of people.

[T1200]

It took forever for Imageshack to give me those ten photos that you posted, CM Hino.

I'm all for 10 at 820px.

[Ken]

Would it be an idea to create another forum on the board for these test threads, so it doesn't clutter up the photo forums?

Also so more people notice it, is it possible to have your poll thread as a global announcement, similar to what T1200 has done?

Would you also like an ad to be placed in the Newcastle Herald and a special broadcast by Ray Dineen on NBN News?

[CM Hino]

It took forever for Imageshack to give me those ten photos that you posted, CM Hino.

Hi T1200
Windy has just comment on the pictures taking there time as well

Anybody else having problems