This is also made more complicated by the fact that many people, most(?) people, take pictures at very high resolution. Many pixels; more pixels than what are needed to display well on an average display. I do it too…. the latest images I have taken with my phone have a file size of over 4 MB. 4 MB for one image. The text-only portion of several pages of any one thread here does not come close to that size. A “how I did it” topic here can have a dozen or more images. The images are the real load on the bandwidth.
Even if the software used on a forum incorporates an automated image downsizing feature before actually storing the images on the host server, the image has to first be uploaded in it’s large size. That costs the host server a bunch of bandwidth; expenses.
I shrink images I use down to a couple hundred KB, or less, before uploading them to my selected image host service. Not everybody knows how to do that and may not have the foggiest idea of what I am speaking of.
IMO, the amount of bandwidth used by images is a main reason why Photobucket went from being a free host to a host with extortion-like fees when images are used to be used on third party pages such as forums and blogs. There is no long term free lunch. Somebody pays somewhere along the line.
If it was possible to have web browsers automatically downsize images before uploading to a web site or web image host, that would reduce bandwidth loads. I have no idea how easy that would be to implement or how it could be done. But then we’d have complaints about image quality reduction from some people. Just my opinion.
I consider BLF a pretty small, niche forum. We get lots of new users for group buys, but then they dissappear and it’s just a small group of people again.
Maybe if everyone had to pay a monthly fee to use the forum SB could use a more expensive hosting site, but then there would probably be even less users. I’m kinda glad this forum is free. Using an off site host for puctures is not that big a deal in my mind.
Look at it from another perspective. The are members who frequent other (flashlight) sites.
Sometimes other US sites, sometimes sites in their native country/language.
When using a hosting site they do not need to upload pictures every time they do a review (etc).
The insert image function works very well on BLF, no loss in sharpness that I can see. I always upload 1,600 pixel wide photos to my image hosting site, then let the forum software set the image size to about 800-900 pixels wide. This seems to be the Goldilocks spot for sharp pictures that aren't too big or small.
CPF also requires externally hosted photos, unless you are a donating member.
The reddit forum does upload photos to their server, but you must live with their horrible user interface.
JasonWW
That’s a good thought about listing the direct link.
On my windows system the video, once started, shows a YouTube logo that when clicked opens a new tab of the video on youtube.
I don’t see that on my android tablet.
Since I don’t necessarily know the size of the video vertical pixel height if I use some reasonable width (like 600).
I just put in the pixel width and it seems that the board software takes care of it.
for example: FT 006 Sofirn BLF SP36 Thermal Stepdown PWM - YouTube width:600
Gets me the below
That seems to be in a correct aspect ratio as did the 4/3 video in my previous post using the same method.
It seems like 600 pixels to 800 pixels for a video width won’t over run smaller screens and still be large enough on monitors.
As far as image size goes, I link to images that are 1024 pixels in the largest dimension and size them so they stay inside the column. Portrait images get a smaller % so they make sense in relation to the landscape images.
I also resize the images to 1024 before uploading. Saves on my uphill bandwidth. I’m too old to wait for a bunch of 24M Pixel images to upload.
Thanks for the help.
All the best,
Jeff