Feature Change Request... Increase picture size limit

[+Arrow42]

I would love to see the picture size limit raised from "125k or 600 pixels wide". It's quite small and really doesn't do the photographs people submit much justice. I would like to see it raised to 500kb or 1650 pixels wide.

[+wkmccall]

I would love to see the picture size limit raised from "125k or 600 pixels wide". It's quite small and really doesn't do the photographs people submit much justice. I would like to see it raised to 500kb or 1650 pixels wide.

 

There is a greasemonkey script that will let you view the images in a larger (original size once gc has resized).

 

Also, I've noticed that it depends on Where you are looking at the picture. Clicking on the gallery image will usually send you to the larger / re-sized original image.

[+Arrow42]

I would love to see the picture size limit raised from "125k or 600 pixels wide". It's quite small and really doesn't do the photographs people submit much justice. I would like to see it raised to 500kb or 1650 pixels wide.

 

There is a greasemonkey script that will let you view the images in a larger (original size once gc has resized).

 

Also, I've noticed that it depends on Where you are looking at the picture. Clicking on the gallery image will usually send you to the larger / re-sized original image.

 

That doesn't have anything to do with my post, but I appreciate the advice. Parialy I made the request because I have a nice camera that takes pictures at much higher quality then the site will let me upload them in. I would just be nice to share pictures people could use for backgrounds, etc.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Arrow42

[+Kalkendotters]

I would love to see the picture size limit raised from "125k or 600 pixels wide". It's quite small and really doesn't do the photographs people submit much justice. I would like to see it raised to 500kb or 1650 pixels wide.

Keep in mind that this is a geocaching site. Pictures should be used to illustrate the geocaching activity.

If the limits are raised, I will not be surprised if everyone will upload bigger foto's wheter needed or not.

That cause extra HD space used, and extra traffic causing a slower site...

Edited June 27, 2009 by Kalkendotters

[+Haffy]

I would love to see the picture size limit raised from "125k or 600 pixels wide". It's quite small and really doesn't do the photographs people submit much justice. I would like to see it raised to 500kb or 1650 pixels wide.

 

The site is already overloaded at times so I see no need for anything else to slow it down. Why not just put a link to an offsite storage place where you could show all your photos? Maybe in your signature or something of that sort.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Haffy

[+Arrow42]

Keep in mind that this is a geocaching site. Pictures should be used to illustrate the geocaching activity.

If the limits are raised, I will not be surprised if everyone will upload bigger foto's wheter needed or not.

That cause extra HD space used, and extra traffic causing a slower site...

 

I understand the bandwidth issue. However, hard drive space is virtually free compared to every other cost involved in running a server.

 

I'm just throwing the idea out there so GS knows it's wanted. Maybe at some point they will be able to evaluate the HD/bandwidth see if it fits current capacity.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Arrow42

[+wkmccall]

Sorry... I thought you were wanting to see the larger images..

[+DanOCan]

I understand the bandwidth issue. However, hard drive space is virtually free compared to every other cost involved in running a server.

 

Common fallacy. At work we find storage to be one of the largest costs in running our IT department. Most times you are running some sort of enterprise class system such as a SAN, which costs big bucks. Plus you want a second copy of that data on a disk somewhere else for disaster recovery/business continuity purposes. And then you still need to back all of it up. Our users often wonder why they can buy a USB hard drive for less than $100 for a TB of data yet we need to charge $25/GB -- it all comes down to the class of service you plan on offering.

 

Anyway, back to topic...

 

I have found that if I manipulate the image first I can either heavily compress it and get a fairly large image in the space allotted, or I can re-size it so I get the full 600 pixels. If I let the site resize it for me the results are less than stellar, but in most cases my image isn't that great that it needs that sort of quality anyway. If all else fails, I'll link to Photobucket or other such site so Groundspeak doesn't get saddled with the costs of hosting higher-quality versions of my photos.

[+StarBrand]

.... I made the request because I have a nice camera that takes pictures at much higher quality then the site will let me upload them in. I would just be nice to share pictures people could use for backgrounds, etc.

I think virtually all of us have such a camera unless you are still shooting pics with less than a 2 megapixel camera. Really not the point.

 

The average computer user still uses a PC/monitor with only 1024 pixels across - making them scroll to see larger images. I have to agree that 600 is a bit small but I also think the max shouldn't go over about 800 pixels wide or so.

 

Make use of an external server and add links for HQ pictures you want to share for backgrounds etc.

[+Kit Fox]

As someone who shoots with a 12mp D90, I can relate and agree with Arrow42. I would be quite happy if they increased the limit to 250KB for premium members. I often use the photo galleries of geocaches as a reason to find or not to find a cache. The current limits are very restrictive for me, and require heavy downsizing using Photoshop. I've resorted to posting links to my Flickr or Photobucket sites.

[knowschad]

I agree that the current limitations are based on a very outdated standard, and I do upload plenty of pics and have bemoaned the lost resolution, but until the site has been upgraded to handle its essential tasks, I don't think any of us would want our bandwidth going into picture viewing.

[+Viajero Perdido]

By trial and error, I've found the limit is 200kb, not whatever the web page says. Images below that size are kept at that size. (But no longer in any kind of order, ahem.)

 

If you tinker with the JPG compression settings, you can keep your pictures below 200kb, but still largish in physical dimension, if that's what you're after.

[+Arrow42]

I agree that the current limitations are based on a very outdated standard, and I do upload plenty of pics and have bemoaned the lost resolution, but until the site has been upgraded to handle its essential tasks, I don't think any of us would want our bandwidth going into picture viewing.

 

Wikipedia's software has a wonderful solution to the bandwidth problem. They do a couple of different things:

1. Image server is separate from the rest of the site.

2. The software resizes the image for display when it's being shown in a smaller format then the original.

3. All thumbnails are stored on the cache server so it doesn't need to be re-processed every time.

4. The only time the sever ever serves up the largest format of the image is when someone specifically requests the "full size".

 

In addition to all of that the image compression tool they use is vastly superior to the one used here.

 

This methodology has the advantage of being much softer on bandwidth usages. Most pictures won't get viewed in "full size" mode - only the better quality or more interesting ones will. It's also quite scalable.

 

I know, it would also be expensive and time consuming. Maybe a "some day" thing.

[+sTeamTraen]

Don't forget that not everyone has superfast broadband, either when on the road or in many cases (still) at home.

 

My main use of cache pages is to get spoiler photos, since the description and logs are in my Colorado. It's already frustrating enough to have to wade through 300K of data on the cache page to get the link to the spoiler; having the photo itself be 900K with 1680x1050 resolution doesn't help much on my 160x180 pixel phone display.

 

So before photos are allowed to be huge, I'd want to see some smart code on the site to avoid sending bazillions of bytes to devices which can't handle them.

[+Arrow42]

So before photos are allowed to be huge, I'd want to see some smart code on the site to avoid sending bazillions of bytes to devices which can't handle them.

 

Check out my previous post.

 

Images don't load directly on the cache page anyway. You need to click though to get to them anyway.

[+Kalkendotters]

Wikipedia's software has a wonderful solution to the bandwidth problem. They do a couple of different things:

1. Image server is separate from the rest of the site.

2. The software resizes the image for display when it's being shown in a smaller format then the original.

3. All thumbnails are stored on the cache server so it doesn't need to be re-processed every time.

4. The only time the sever ever serves up the largest format of the image is when someone specifically requests the "full size".

 

In addition to all of that the image compression tool they use is vastly superior to the one used here.

 

This methodology has the advantage of being much softer on bandwidth usages. Most pictures won't get viewed in "full size" mode - only the better quality or more interesting ones will. It's also quite scalable.

 

I know, it would also be expensive and time consuming. Maybe a "some day" thing.

Groundspeak already does a lot of this:

1) images are hosted on img.Groundspeak.com

2) lowres images have a /display/ in the url

3) see 2)

4) large images are only displayed if you use lightbos, or 'zooom in' on the log

 

Imagecompression on gc.com is indeed really horrible. Even the builtin windows tools do a better job.

[markandlynn]

The site might be better off liasing with the likes of photobucket and flikr rather than pursuing the images side of geo caching.

 

Thinking about it i may just start hyperlinking them in the logs at least then i can upload all the days photographs in one go to flikr while i log things on here.

 

Thanks for the inspiration.