The max file size limit for attachments is 5MB and it encourages people to blindly post multi-megabyte images when less than a minute with Paint or similar software can usually reduce it to a couple dozen kilobytes. That is a real issue for people that have slow internet connections and/or download limits (both of which are the norm for satellite internet users). Plus, the forum has to provide archival storage for all of these huge files.

Many forums have 100 KB limits on file attachments and I think that almost all file attachments here can be handled readily in under 500 KB. Could the size limit be reduced? Or, perhaps as a compromise, if someone tries to upload a file larger than, say, 200 KB they get a pop-up discouraging them from posting large files and warning them than many members either cannot or will not download large attachments. It can then give them some suggestions for ways to reduce the file size, such as using Paint or similar software to scale the an image to approx. 300 pixels wide and saving photographs in JPG and line drawings in PNG format, but giving them the ability to bypass the warning and post the large file anyway.

Also, it would be nice if images larger than, say, 200 KB could only be attached and not inserted as images in the post since people with slow connections or tight download limits get hit with large embedded attachments?

 

Hello,

Looking in the admin panel, there is not a possibility to have different sizes for the diverse attachments types.
There is a possibility to set maximum sizes for images.
I will discuss this with the other moderators and jrap.

Bertus

 

I generally do both, if needed. There is something to be said for posting hi res images for inspection purposes, I have found it to be very useful. Goes back to the many eyes few bugs make school of thought.

If you see any examples of outrageous sizes flag it, it won't be the first I've edited a post for that.

 

I generally do both, if needed. There is something to be said for posting hi res images for inspection purposes, I have found it to be very useful. Goes back to the many eyes few bugs make school of thought.

If you see any examples of outrageous sizes flag it, it won't be the first I've edited a post for that.

So you are saying that you are willing to edit all of the file attachments that are 2MB when they could easily be 20KB? Okay, I'll start reporting them all to you.

 

So you are saying that you are willing to edit all of the file attachments that are 2MB when they could easily be 20KB? Okay, I'll start reporting them all to you.

I don't think that is what Bill said.

What I have observed is that some people, often new members, will post gigantic attachments. That is perhaps analogous to posting in all capitals. Whenever someone posts in all caps or gaudy colors, a moderator or member often steps in to address the issue. I think large attachments could be handled the same way. It is obvious which ones are too large and all that needs to happen is for a moderator (preferably) or member to comment. Maybe the moderators can create a simple text advisory to such posters with suggestions for size and resolution. Basically, I am with you, WBahn. I try to keep my image attachments to 72 dpi and 6" wide (<100KB). Albeit, sometimes 72 dpi doesn't show the true greatness of my work, but I live with it. The only question is how best to resolve the problem. I have a fairly fast connection, but viewing such attachments is a real pain and requires scrolling. So, I usually put them into an editor and get them to a reasonable size.

A downside to limiting attachment sizes is the effect on EAGLE posts (often >200KB) and posting of videos.

John

 

A downside to limiting attachment sizes is the effect on EAGLE posts (often >200KB) and posting of videos.

Which is why I don't have an objection to there being a way for people to post larger files, just that I would like to see it not be simple and brain-dead. I think they should have to jump through at least one or two hoops to do so.

 

Maybe pick a file type they can go large, and limit the rest?

If it is not being displayed on the post I don't see the problem, as the display software (usually the forum) will automatically size it down. Then again, I have FIOS. And love it.

 

I'm one who refuses to download massive attachments, because my downloads are capped. I also dislike the tendency many newbs have of posting videos when a simple static image would be far more effective and save on bandwidth/storage.
At least this site has a 5MB limit; over at ETO they have not been persuaded to reduce the nonsensical 32GB limit. That's asking for trouble.

 

One way to handle this is to limit the files on this site to 200K (or whatever) and have them use other web servers (like Google Drive) to hold larger files and use links to them. They could even have a thumbnail picture of the large image to use for the link.

 

Depends, generally hosting off site is strongly discouraged. It something happens to the other site the post is left incomplete. We have taken this to extremes on the Completed Projects forum, using a offline source is grounds to reject an entry.

In the end, jrap is the arbitor of this, since it is his hard drive space we are talking about. I tend to be very cavalier about file sizes, since hard drives are rapidly walking away in size to the terabyte ranges (and beyond), and my local internet is pretty much the same.

I was a little surprised and pleased to see videos allowed here, there weren't with the old software. For the most part they are hosted by You Tube.

My answer is simple, if you don't like someones post don't respond. If it is bad enough set the twit bit and ignore them.

 

I agree that hosting images off site should be discouraged. Not only is there the risk of the images becoming unavailable, but all too many of these sites either want to install dozens of cookies to track your every move and start spamming you, or are at worst actively malicious sites.

I like helping people and I don't want to refuse to offer assistance just because someone does something that is totally absurd, like posting an image that is 100x larger than needed, especially when they have no reason to suspect that it is a problem. But it IS a problem when my satellite connection is seldom better than 100kb/s and I have a 200MB/day download allowance -- and I know I'm not the only one with slow and restricted satellite or dial-up access.

It should be a pretty straight matter to trap image uploads that exceed a low threshold but let people opt to go ahead and post them as long as they don't exceed the much larger hard cap. This is, after all, how posting to old threads is (or at least used to be) handled.

 

photozou.jp is quite good- it has various thumbnails in civil sizes as well you can categorize.

Its virtually XXX free, so its safe to use / view for anyone.

 

What part of not hosting locally is discouraged did you not get?

 

@Bill Marsden
Some punctuation would help that sentence, especially considering that takao seems to have started life with a different language.

 

OK, We want all hosting of files done locally, except You Tube. Unconvoluted enough?

 

I don't know, Bill? All hosting of files? Some of my files don't belong on the Forum. And hosting locally means on my local hard drive?

I propose something like the following. "All files and images which are to be included in a post must be uploaded to the Forum. Files and images must not be hosted on any third-party service, such as cloudinary, iimmgg, ImageShack, imgur, ImageVenue, Instagram, mojoimage, Photobucket , ... This list is not all inclusive, but presented as examples of the type of services prohibited. Note that videos are not included in this requirement; videos may be hosted on YouTube. "

(Note: For those of us who may not understand my sense of humor, be assured this is tongue in cheek)

 

There may be a misunderstanding here. If you use a file in a post, it should be locally hosted, whether it is off topic or general electronic chat. Otherwise, what is to prevent them from going poof and damaging the post? If they are not used on AAC it is a non-issue.

Like I said, the only exception is You Tube, and that uses a lot of conventions we (and other forums) don't want to get into.

Why make it complex when it does not have to be ?

Edit: Tired computing strikes again. Humor is wasted on me when I'm wasted.

 

Hello,

I am picking this up again.
Lately we had a member who posted several 8MB pictures in a post.
ScottWang reduced them to about 100 kB each and we still had enough information.

I have set the maximum image size to 2048 X 2048, wich still will be royal.
Scott did a test with 2048 X 2048 and the max image size was about 800 kB.

Bertus

 

I will suggest to set the limits to 1600 x 1200, that is for the most of applications in ee forum, if the TS would like to focus on any part then he can take a close-up picture, that is more clear than a high resolution picture and make file size smaller, I was spent over 10 years on ee forum, but I never see any case really needs a picture has 1200 x 1024, take a close-up picture could take over the high resolution picture, In Taiwan, we almost using 800x600 and some using 1024 x768, if anyone really needs a more large picture then he can upload the zip file.

Although we have a max file size limited, but not to use the large file size is the common sense, I think most of our members would like to use appropriate file size, the means is a clear picture that anyone can see clearly, the most part are 800x600 or 1024x768, recently some of our new members would like to challenge the max file size and saying that they didn't do anything wrong, please remember that our members still have some are using the lower communication speed to get online to viewing the pictures, when anyone asking for help then he also needs to think about other members, our members in the community here to help each other, if anyone has selfish attitude, why should other helper need to help him?

The picture as below was that I combined to do the test, 832,327 kb, bertus saying that the picture I tested was this one.

 

@bertus @ScottWang
I looked at some the pictures that I have posted to get a feel for the file sizes. I do change the resolution based on picture content.

- Schematics - Quick example schematics ranged from 15 Kb to 60 Kb.

- General pictures - 80 Kb to 460 Kb.

- High detail pictures - PCB close ups averaged 750 Kb and some got up to 1.2 Mb (but I could have cut the res down to 800 Kb without loosing anything).

- Off Topic/Picture this - I recently posted three photos that were about 2.1 Mb each. I saw this as art and did not attempt to reduce the resolution. They were striking pictures, but they would still be striking at 800 Kb.

So, I would have no problem living with 800 Kb file size limit.