Gc.com Resize Images

[CacheMonkeez]

This text is on the image upload page:

 

Some Tips 
* If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized.
* It doesn't do the best resizing job. Editing your own larger image is preferable.
* Final images will always be converted to jpg. 

 

What exactly does this mean? I resize my images to less than 125K, but sometimes they are resized by the site any way. When does the site resize and when does it not resize?

 

And if it was resized by the site, can it be un-resized?

 

And are all images in a log resized or just the ones over 125K?

 

What if I delete the image over 125K, will all be resized or is it too late?

Edited December 20, 2005 by CacheMonkeez

[+New England n00b]

Two conditions control resizing:

 

1) Size of file (125kb)

 

-OR-

 

2) Being more than 600 pizels wide.

 

Your best bet is to convert on your own, using your image editor, rather than relying on GC.com

 

If you want a super large picture, I guess use an off-site image host website and create a link to the images. Users will have to click on the link ot see them.

 

Veterans can better answer your other questions, just a bit to get you started, from moi - a n00b.

[+RJFerret]

The 125kb (or even 125,000 bytes) I've found to be optimistic, I tend to keep 'em closer to 100k to avoid running into trouble.

 

They are resized on a case-by-case basis. If it gets resized, you can delete it and/or upload a new smaller version.

 

IE, your actions on one image won't affect any other.

 

These are just my experiences however, to be countermanded by those in the know!

 

hth,

 

Randy

[CacheMonkeez]

"If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized"

 

This is the confusing statement. The word "largest" implies that there are at least 3 images in consideration. What happens if I upload only one or two images? Is it true, as RJF suggests, that the size of one image doesn't affect the others?

[+dogbreathcanada]

The image uploading changed and has yet to be fixed. See my thread from a couple weeks back:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=115829

[CacheMonkeez]

OK, so there's a bug, but my original questions remained unanswered.

 

"If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized".

 

What is "the largest image"?

[+NoLemon]

OK, so there's a bug, but my original questions remained unanswered.

 

"If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized".

 

What is "the largest image"?

Don't get hung up on the wording.

 

It would be better stated as: "Each image is checked for size. Images that are less than 600 pixels wide and smaller than 125K-bytes will not be resized. If your image is either wider than 600 pixels or bigger than 125K-bytes, it will be resized or compressed automatically."

 

Each image is analyzed individually. One image does not impact another.

[+Raine]

The image uploading changed and has yet to be fixed. See my thread from a couple weeks back:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=115829

 

DBC, your concerns in that post were addressed and released to the wild when Jeremy said they would be.

 

-Raine

 

*edited to add DBC, *

Edited December 21, 2005 by raine

[+the hermit crabs]

It would be better stated as:  "Each image is checked for size.  Images that are less than 600 pixels wide and smaller than 125K-bytes will not be resized.  If your image is either wider than 600 pixels or bigger than 125K-bytes, it will be resized or compressed automatically."

Other than the word "largest", I think that the wording on the site is actually correct:

" If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized."

 

You've replaced the "or" with "and", but it doesn't seem to work that way, as far as I can see. I have resized many images so that they are less than 125 KB but > 600 pixels wide, and they have not been automatically resized. (I haven't tried it other way -- attempting to upload an image that is < 600 pixels wide but > 125 KB.)

 

Here's an example from my gallery -- before uploading, I resized it to be 800 pixels wide and 123 KB; it still is that same size on the gc site.

[CacheMonkeez]

OK, so there's a bug, but my original questions remained unanswered.

 

"If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized".

 

What is "the largest image"?

Don't get hung up on the wording.

 

It would be better stated as: "Each image is checked for size. Images that are less than 600 pixels wide and smaller than 125K-bytes will not be resized. If your image is either wider than 600 pixels or bigger than 125K-bytes, it will be resized or compressed automatically."

 

Each image is analyzed individually. One image does not impact another.

OK. Then the wording should be changed so it's clear and accurate.

 

I understand the explanations, but I've had images that are both less than 125K and fewer than 600 pixels wide get resized. So that just added more uncertainty to the situation.

[+NoLemon]

It would be better stated as:  "Each image is checked for size.  Images that are less than 600 pixels wide and smaller than 125K-bytes will not be resized.  If your image is either wider than 600 pixels or bigger than 125K-bytes, it will be resized or compressed automatically."

Other than the word "largest", I think that the wording on the site is actually correct:

" If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized."

 

You've replaced the "or" with "and", but it doesn't seem to work that way, as far as I can see. I have resized many images so that they are less than 125 KB but > 600 pixels wide, and they have not been automatically resized. (I haven't tried it other way -- attempting to upload an image that is < 600 pixels wide but > 125 KB.)

 

Here's an example from my gallery -- before uploading, I resized it to be 800 pixels wide and 123 KB; it still is that same size on the gc site.

 

I did just upload a picture that is less than 600 wide but greater than 125KB -- the image was resized upon upload. Prior to upload, the image was 500x375 @228KB. The automatically compressed uploaded image is 500x375 @ 145KB.

 

For the second test, I uploaded the same picture at a 700x535 resolution. The image size was 89.3KB. It appears that this file was processed during the upload as it now shows to be the same dimensions, but 221.2KB in size.

 

For the third test, I uploaded the same picture at 500x373 @72KB. The uploaded file is the same dimensions, but now shows a size of 134KB.

 

In this series of tests, all pictures were processed and re-compressed, though the dimensions didn't change. TMMV

 

Edit: fix typo

Edited December 21, 2005 by NoLemon

[+Raine]

Can you like to the image that was 2,212KB in size?

[+NoLemon]

Can you like to the image that was 2,212KB in size?

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to type 221.2KB. Still want a link?

[+Raine]

Yah.. post a link to all three images that you uploaded..

 

Thanks!

[+NoLemon]

Yah.. post a link to all three images that you uploaded..

 

Thanks!

Test One: 500x375 original, 228KB

 

Test Two: 700x535, original, 89.3KB

 

Test Three: 500x375, original 72KB

Edited December 21, 2005 by NoLemon

[+fizzymagic]

Test One: 500x375 original, 145KB

 

Test Two: 700x535, original, 89.3KB

 

Test Three: 500x375, original 72KB

These pictures match what the site is supposed to be doing perfectly.

Here's how it works (and how it should continue to work):

• If your picture size < 125K, it is left unchanged.
  
• If your picture size > 125K and the width < 600, the image is recompressed without changing the dimensions.
  
• If your picture size > 125K and the width > 600, the image is recompressed with a width of 600.
  

Please don't change this algorithm. Pictures look lousy at 600 pixels wide, so I always take care to transcode my images to be under the size limit.

Edited December 21, 2005 by fizzymagic

[Jeremy]

The fizzy has spoken

[+NoLemon]

Test One: 500x375 original, 145KB

 

Test Two: 700x535, original, 89.3KB

 

Test Three: 500x375, original 72KB

These pictures match what the site is supposed to be doing perfectly.

Here's how it works (and how it should continue to work):

• 
   
  
• If your picture size < 125K, it is left unchanged.
   
  
• If your picture size > 125K and the width < 600, the image is recompressed without changing the dimensions.
   
  
• If your picture size > 125K and the width > 600, the image is recompressed with a width of 600.
   
  

Please don't change this algorithm. Pictures look lousy at 600 pixels wide, so I always take care to transcode my images to be under the size limit.

 

I also make sure that my files are under the limits. I'd prefer to manipulate jpeg compression settings and image dimensions to obtain a picture that I like. That is why I'd like to know what settings won't affect images.

 

Except that is not what happened.

• The 500px wide image sized < 125KB also increased in size to be larger than 125KB. -- Not at all as advertised. According to the site, this image shouldn't be touched as it is both under 600px wide and smaller than 125KB. The file size increased.
  
• The 500px wide, > 125KB image decreased in file size from 228KB to 145KB. -- This works as advertised.
  
• The 700px wide image stayed at 700px and the file size increased. -- Perhaps as advertised, but is it as intended? Why would you want the file size to increase?
  

BTW - there is a type in the first link of mine you quoted. I corrected it on my original post, and the value was correct in my post where I first documented the tests.

[+Raine]

Ok.. so after all is said and done.. do you notice a change in quality of the image at all?

[+fizzymagic]

Except that is not what happened.

Oh. Oops. That is not good; I agree that there should be some combination of file size and image size that can guarantee that the image will remain unsullied.

 

If you want, I have a little program I wrote that can estimate the quality factor used to compress the JPEG image. We can apply it to the images before and after and see what happened.

Edited December 21, 2005 by fizzymagic

[+fizzymagic]

Ok.. so after all is said and done.. do you notice a change in quality of the image at all?

The issue is slightly more complicated than this, Raine. For certain puzzle caches, I need to be able to put a JPEG image in the cache description that is bit-for-bit identical to what I uploaded. I know I could always host the image offsite, but I would prefer not to do that, as the very fact that the image is hosted offsite is a big clue to the puzzle solver.

[+Raine]

Do you have an example of puzzle cache that would need to be bit for bit? If the quality of the hosted image is not less then then what was originally uploaded I don't see what the problem would be.

 

-Raine

Edited December 21, 2005 by raine

[+fizzymagic]

Do you have an example of puzzle cache that would need to be bit for bit? If the quality of the hosted image is not less then then what was originally uploaded I don't see what the problem would be.

Well, there is this one, which requires bit-for-bit fidelity. I can tell you why on IM.

 

Another I recall doing had the coordinates were hidden in a comment header. If the transcoding preserves any nonstandard headers, then it wouldn't be a problem, but if (as is usually the case) it gets rid of all nonessential headers while maximizing compression, it would ruin that.

 

I am working on yet another one that might or might not work if transcoded. I don't want to say too much about that, for obvious reasons!

 

Hmm... now that I am thinking about the second example above, an evil idea for using EXIF information springs to mind! BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[CacheMonkeez]

OK. Here's an image that is 245K and 1240x958. Why wasn't it resized?

 

 

From University Park

Edited December 28, 2005 by CacheMonkeez

[CacheMonkeez]

Test One: 500x375 original, 145KB

 

Test Two: 700x535, original, 89.3KB

 

Test Three: 500x375, original 72KB

These pictures match what the site is supposed to be doing perfectly.

Here's how it works (and how it should continue to work):

• If your picture size < 125K, it is left unchanged.
  
• If your picture size > 125K and the width < 600, the image is recompressed without changing the dimensions.
  
• If your picture size > 125K and the width > 600, the image is recompressed with a width of 600.
  

Please don't change this algorithm. Pictures look lousy at 600 pixels wide, so I always take care to transcode my images to be under the size limit.

hmmm, then how come it didn't recompress the photo above?

[+Alan2]

Test One: 500x375 original, 145KB

 

Test Two: 700x535, original, 89.3KB

 

Test Three: 500x375, original 72KB

These pictures match what the site is supposed to be doing perfectly.

Here's how it works (and how it should continue to work):

• If your picture size < 125K, it is left unchanged.
  
• If your picture size > 125K and the width < 600, the image is recompressed without changing the dimensions.
  
• If your picture size > 125K and the width > 600, the image is recompressed with a width of 600.
  

Please don't change this algorithm. Pictures look lousy at 600 pixels wide, so I always take care to transcode my images to be under the size limit.

I looked at one of your pictures http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/log/607f7...099229a247b.jpg

 

When I right clicked to check properties it indicated 800 x 600 and 166,217 bytes. How come it isn't resized? Page 1 of your files).

[+fizzymagic]

I looked at one of your pictures http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/log/607f7...099229a247b.jpg

 

When I right clicked to check properties it indicated 800 x 600 and 166,217 bytes. How come it isn't resized? Page 1 of your files).

Ah, but the site did resize that picture! The picture I sent was 800x600, 115.9 kB.

 

I have no idea why the transcoding on the site made it bigger. Clearly, it is not behaving as it should.

[+Miragee]

I thought this discussion was interesting, so I checked out a picture I uploaded recently.

 

 

Because I have such a slow dialup connection, I always resize the pictures to 600 pixels wide and then save them with additional compression so the files won't take so long to upload.

 

This image is only 56KB on my computer.

 

In the image properties for the uploaded picture, it is 92 KB . . .

 

I checked out another, recently-uploaded picture and its size was also increased, from 98 KB to 159 KB.

 

Curious . . .

[CacheMonkeez]

I checked out another, recently-uploaded picture and its size was also increased, from 98 KB to 159 KB.

 

Curious . . .

Curious...me too. That's why I axed the question. So it's either a bug or not working as designed?

[+OienLabs]

Christmas eve:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...7c&LID=11943849

 

The text under the picture says this about the picture size (I finally gave up):

 

The picture I uploaded was 800x600 and 107Kb. What GC displays is 600x450. When I download this picure (i.e. back to myself) it is 150Kb.

 

Cell phone pictures is not very good. I like big pictures. Hope this is sortet out soon.

[+RocketMan]

The image resizing algorithm still seems to be broken. I initially uploaded 4 images to this log. They were all over 600 pixels wide and under 125k file size and 3 of the 4 got resized to 600 pixels wide. The only one that didn't get resized was 105k.

 

Here is an example that I uploaded at 123k and 800 pixels wide (It got resized):

 

It should have looked like this:

 

Here is what it looked like when I uploaded it at 112k and 780 pixels wide (no resizing):

 

After a little experimenting, it looks like images over about 115k get resized.

 

Here is one that was 113k and 640 pixels wide and it didn't get resized:

 

OK, there seems to be more to it than just being under 115k. I uploaded a a pano that was only 106k and 1800 pixels wide and it got resized to 600 pixels wide (darn).

 

Edited January 8, 2006 by RocketMan

[CacheMonkeez]

I spend a lot of time resizing photos before they're uploaded. I'm just wondering if that is a waste of time or not.

[Jeremy]

I need a link to one of the original images here so I can do some additional testing. Does someone have a location off-site that they could point me to an image? Thanks!

[+RocketMan]

I need a link to one of the original images here so I can do some additional testing. Does someone have a location off-site that they could point me to an image? Thanks!

The second image in my post above (2 posts up) is uploaded to another site. RM

[+fizzymagic]

I need a link to one of the original images here so I can do some additional testing.

Here you go:

 

Original image here.

 

Image uploaded and stored at geocaching.com here.

[+DavidMac]

I need a link to one of the original images here so I can do some additional testing. Does someone have a location off-site that they could point me to an image? Thanks!

Here's a panorama that I uploaded last week. Unlike RocketMan's panorama, mine was not resized to 600x when it was uploaded. I've just linked to the image instead of displaying it in the post because it's so long:

 

-uploaded to gc.com

-original hosted on my site

 

The original was 1250x300 pixels and 116kb. The dimensions of the one uploaded to my log were not changed, but the image is 1250x300 and 184kb.

[+Joe Smith]

I'm sure this question has been asked, and taken care of but it seemed to go right over my head.

 

If the site resizes any picture I upload, why would I go through the extra work of resizing them myself? Even with OS X Tiger's Automator (piece of junk program by any means) it remains a chore. Does the quality of log pictures (not counting exceptions for puzzle caches) change that much to make it worth it?

 

 

thanks,

 

Joe

[+Prime Suspect]

I'm sure this question has been asked, and taken care of but it seemed to go right over my head.

 

If the site resizes any picture I upload, why would I go through the extra work of resizing them myself? Even with OS X Tiger's Automator (piece of junk program by any means) it remains a chore. Does the quality of log pictures (not counting exceptions for puzzle caches) change that much to make it worth it?

 

 

thanks,

 

Joe

The quality will probably be better. I use Picassa to handle all the digital image I take, and when I export image for upload, it will automatically resize them, if I wish, so there's no extra effort.

 

And Picassa's free, by the way.

[+BigFurryMonster]

Do you have an example of puzzle cache that would need to be bit for bit?

This one is an example:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCN85R

 

------------

 

What is the best tool for resizing a bunch of images to match the conditions for uploading-without-compression-by-gc.com?

 

Picasa has been named; are there any other good ones?

 

Preferably a light and easy-to-use tool.

[+the hermit crabs]

What is the best tool for resizing a bunch of images to match the conditions for uploading-without-compression-by-gc.com?

 

Picasa has been named; are there any other good ones?

 

Preferably a light and easy-to-use tool.

 

After seeing a link for it somewhere in these forums, I've been using IrfanView for image resizing. It's free and it's easy to use.

[+BigFurryMonster]

I've considered using IrfanView, but it has a squashed cat for an Icon, so I don't think it matches well with my personality and Avatar ;-)

[+the hermit crabs]

I've considered using IrfanView, but it has a squashed cat for an Icon, so I don't think it matches well with my personality and Avatar ;-)

No, it's a raccoon!

 

[+Team Teuton]

What is the best tool for resizing a bunch of images to match the conditions for uploading-without-compression-by-gc.com?

 

Picasa has been named; are there any other good ones?

 

Preferably a light and easy-to-use tool.

The same guy who wrote UsaPhotoMaps has a great little program for resizing images. Small (150 KBytes) and simple.

 

Go to http://www.jdmcox.com/

[CacheMonkeez]

This one is 1024x768, way beyond 600 wide.

 

[+Lil Devil]

This one is 1024x768, way beyond 600 wide.

It's only 85K, well under the 125k limit.

[+RJFerret]

Windows XP has built-in batch resizing and rotation (if you've installed Powertools).

 

The reason to resize before uploading is both quality and transfer speed...

 

hth,

 

Randy

[CacheMonkeez]

Yea, I think if it's < 125 K, it doesn't matter if it's over 600 pixels wide - the image will not be resized by gc.com.

Edited February 18, 2006 by CacheMonkeez

[CacheMonkeez]

This image is the largest I've ever seen on gc.com: 1563 x 1587 pixels.

 

[CacheMonkeez]

Here's a huge one.

[+Bad_CRC]

I always thought it was pretty clever that the site resized large file size images, but left them alone if the uploader did the compression themselves.

 

I like uploading images at about 800x600 and I usually use ~100k as my target size when compressing (I use irfanview for resizing and compressing as well).

 

 

I hope it doesn't change. I like uploading images to cache pages when I have pictures that I think other cachers would find interesting or useful, and I think allowing the users to compress the images themselves to get to the proper file size without mandating a tiny image is a smart way to handle it.