When I inserted pictures into my recent Interlocking Tower 24 thread they came out really big on the screen. These were pictures I took with my Android phone and they were huge - like 26in tall x 72 pixels, around 1.4 megabytes in size. I did some experimenting with an image editor and found that an image about 6 in tall x 100px deep produced a much smaller image (150 kb) and it seems to look pretty good on the screen. To test this, I would like to re-size the images on my recent thread to see how they would look overall. So would it be possible to let me edit my thread to upload the smaller imges?
As far as editing a post, I believe there's a timer on how long a member can edit a post after posting. I think it is 10 mins to an hour. The staff instituted this after a member angrily deleted a ton of their posts, leaving unsightly gaps and a lack of images and information they'd posted in each thread. After that, the member left the site for good, and a mess in their wake. To prevent future recurrence, the staff added the timer. If editing a post is necessary after that, please contact a staff member. Unless the image links are broken, there is no need to have posts edited simply to increase the image size. Hope that helps!
Thanks, Hemi, looks like it would be more trouble than it's worth. I'll just use the smaller images on a future post to see how it looks. BTW, you might consider adding, if possible, an alert when somebody clicks on the "Post a New Tread" button, that they have x amount of time to make any corrections.
On my photos, I often use 1000 Pixels on the horizontal axis. I'm going to do an experiment here to satisfy my curiosity, 1000, 900 and 800. I have a small laptop screen. [Shepard, SC 11/05/2016]
Beautiful picture, Hardcoaler! Is it 72 px/in? The 1000 px wide image is a bit large on my computer screen but the 800 px image looks really good. The minimum size I came up with was about 600 horiz px @96 px/in. So maybe 600 to 800 px would be an optimal width to keep the file size low but still have a decent picture. I'll try posting some images soon and see how they look compared to yours. Thanks for the feedback!
Thank you. I'm not sure what the px/in is on the three samples I posted. I don't see that result displayed in the processing software I use, though it's probably hiding in there somewhere. I like your plan to post some of your pictures in varying sizes/resolution to see how they look.
Hmm well I'm walking on egg shells here... I'm no graphics expert but I think it means that if you have an image that is 72 pixels per inch, each inch of the image is broken up into 72 parts or pixels (1 sq in = 72x72 pixels). So a 96 px/inch image would would have more pixels and therefore would have a higher resolution. And I think your 1000 pixel wide measurement means that at 72 pixels per inch, the image would be 1000/72 = 14 inches wide. For 96 px/in, it would be 1000/96 = 10.5 inches wide. Going the opposite way, 10.5 inches x 96 px/in is roughly 1000 px wide). Somebody please correct me if this is not right.
Here are four sizes of an image that I posted on my Tower 24 thread - three at 72 pix resolution and one at 96 pix resolution. Each following image is approximately half the size of the previous one. It's interesting to note that the two 4.5 wide images look the same but if you enlarge them, the 96px image has slightly more detail. 18 inches or 1319 pixels wide @ 72 pix resolution 8 inches or 720 pixels wide @ 72 pix resolution 4.5 inches or 430 pixels wide @ 72 pix resolution 4.5 inches or 430 pixels wide @ 96 pix resolution Something else to consider: the TrainBoard display is different if you're not logged in vs if you're logged in. The images on the Tower 24 post are almost half of the viewing window and of various sizes when you're not logged in; when you log in, they fill the width of the image window, so the TB software is adjusting the size of the images to make them fit. I don't have that feature on my computer browser so the images appear overly large, because they are actually very large. Sorry to make this so involved, but thanks for hanging in there! And feel free to correct me.
Hardcoaler, I re-read your comment and I believe I misunderstood what you said about px/in. My apologies for going off and explaining it when you probably already knew what it meant.
In our past we have suggested that a total file size of around 100kb has worked well. If details within an image are indeed important, a larger size may be of course necessary.
Oh, no problem there. There's much that still puzzles me. I think I've come to let my eyes be the judge on what looks best here, balancing file size and clarity. When I post vertical shots, I try to choose a size that will display most or all of the image without having to scroll up and down to take it all in.
