How big should an embedded image be? Give your opinion.

44 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

jeff51
jeff51's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 min 19 sec ago
Joined: 03/26/2019 - 17:36
Posts: 1189
Location: Middle of Texas
How big should an embedded image be? Give your opinion.

Jumping off RCs question about how many pictures should a review have.
And G0OSE’s comment about too large an image size, sucking up time and bandwidth.
Over at CPF, images are not to exceed 800 pixels max.
Is that too small?
Not everyone has 200mbs downloads…
A thread that takes forever to load, better have something I really want to see to put up with huge images.

So, Three Questions.

How wide in pixels is your display?

Where do you notice image degradation?

How big is big enough?

Open in your normal browser window.

All the Best,
Jeff

400

500

640

800

1024

1600

2048

24mp

G0OSE
G0OSE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 09/03/2014 - 12:34
Posts: 2312
Location: UK SW

1600 is the sweetspot between quality and loading time for me. Anything else is better viewed off site imo due to loading times – remember a lot of people use phones.

kennybobby
kennybobby's picture
Offline
Last seen: 47 min 25 sec ago
Joined: 05/10/2017 - 09:13
Posts: 948
Location: huntspatch, alabama

macbook pro 17”, they all look the same quality image to me, and fit within the width of the post (image is about 5×7”). This was fixed by Barkuti’s effort some time ago.

Now i used to think that i was cool,
drivin' around on fossil fuel,
until i saw what i was doin',
was drivin' down the road to ruin. --JT

2A
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/18/2020 - 09:57
Posts: 569
Location: quarantained

I don’t see a big difference after 1024. but I have bad eyes.

G0OSE
G0OSE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 09/03/2014 - 12:34
Posts: 2312
Location: UK SW

kennybobby wrote:
macbook pro 17”, they all look the same and fit within the width of the post. This was fixed by Barkuti’s effort some time ago.

We are talking about image quality vs load time, not fit ( I believe Jeff? ). They all fit as he has limited the display size.
In a nutshell the images above all sized the same, after 1600 there is no benefit unless you full size it, by downloading, or viewing off site (right click – view image).
raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 52 sec ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 17106
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

My monitors are set at 900p.

One is at 1600 x 900, the other is at 1440 x 900.

When I resize large photos, I usually make them a maximum of 1600 pixels long/wide, and I save them at 90% jpg quality.

The images will look fine on a monitor that is 1080p, but they might not look good at 2160p.

Anthony Nguyenn
Anthony Nguyenn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 3 days ago
Joined: 06/23/2018 - 09:45
Posts: 125
Location: U.S.A

Im using a 27’ 1440p screen. It looks almost identical between 1600, 2048 and 24mpx. Unless Im zoom in 300%. The 24mp took almost 2x longer to load.

Lumintop Tool AA 2.0 Nichia + CW| Lumintop Tool AAA | Lumintop EDC 18 6500k| Lumintop EDC 01| Convoy S2+ 7135*8 5000k | Convoy S2 UV Nichia |Massdrop Vega AA NW |BLF A6 NW | Nitecore Tube 2.0 | Sofirn SD 05 | Sofirn 01S 4000k| Klaurus G15 | Klarus HR1 Pro | Thrunite T10T v2 NW| Thrunite T1 Black + OD Green | Thrunite Ti3 CW+ NW| |Rovyvon A3x Nichia | Rovyvon A5x Cree | Rovyvon A23 Nichia | Wuben E19 Nichia | MecArmy SGN 6 | Wowtac BSS V4 | Wowtac W1 | Wowtac H01 | Ultratac A3N Nichia | Wurkkos FC11 |  Wurkkos WK30

Thrunite T2 |

anonymous_user
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 05/23/2019 - 21:59
Posts: 347
Location: CA, USA

My monitor is 2560×1440. I think the 1024 image is acceptable and 1600 is the sweet spot.

Personally I’d prefer smaller thumbnails that just link to the full image. I don’t want to be loading a crap ton of images when I open a thread but I also don’t want a thread without images. Thumbnails give me a good idea of which images I want to see and then I can choose to open just those in full size.

ryansoh3
ryansoh3's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 3 days ago
Joined: 08/04/2012 - 08:21
Posts: 3890
Location: US

If bandwidth is a concern, a more aggressive image compression can be used.

For example, the 2048px image you posted is 522kB. You can compress it down to the size of the 1024px one (183kB) without losing too much detail.

BLF ≠ B-grade Flashlight Forum

 

G0OSE
G0OSE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 09/03/2014 - 12:34
Posts: 2312
Location: UK SW

Of course, the issue IS it makes no difference if you store it off site and still use the full size image, but resize (on here) limited – it STILL loads in the WHOLE full size image – this, and this alone is the issue.
To combat it you need to resize the image on your pc and post THAT on here, then LINK it to the FULL size image in off site in storage – then this site doesn’t have to load in the huge size.
Sadly that means hosting 2 versions – 1 to view here, and another, different URL for the full fat one.

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15736
Location: nyc

It takes more work, but at least in my reviews I put a smaller pic (actually smaller in filesize) as a teaser, but clickable to a larger size.

Eg, http://budgetlightforum.com/node/73073 .

Any pages that take a long time to load (because of pix), I just back out and don’t bother reading anything. I hate having a page pinwheeling forever while huge pic after huge pic loads and keeps shifting the display so you can’t even f’n read a word before it shifts the viewscreen again.

Posting a fullsize 24Mpx pic but doing the whole “width=50%” thing does not help, as it’s still loading the huge honkin’ pic anyway.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

G0OSE
G0OSE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 09/03/2014 - 12:34
Posts: 2312
Location: UK SW

Lightbringer wrote:
It takes more work, but at least in my reviews I put a smaller pic (actually smaller in filesize) as a teaser, but clickable to a larger size.

Eg, http://budgetlightforum.com/node/73073 .

Any pages that take a long time to load (because of pix), I just back out and don’t bother reading anything. I hate having a page pinwheeling forever while huge pic after huge pic loads and keeps shifting the display so you can’t even f’n read a word before it shifts the viewscreen again.

Posting a fullsize 24Mpx pic but doing the whole “width=50%” thing does not help, as it’s still loading the huge honkin’ pic anyway.


This exactly. I could live with the pics being a bit bigger though – but yes exactly what you said/did Lightbringer.
Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15736
Location: nyc

They’re just teaser pix, to let someone view at a glance what they are without taking up half the viewscreen, more if they’d wrap.

“Oh, that looks like the box, light, and all the come-with crap… lemme look to see if there’s a clip in there…”

That kind of thing.

If it’d be beamshots where you’d want to see ‘em at 100% by scrolling up/down, sure, but I can’t take beamshots to save my life. LOL

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 52 sec ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 17106
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

I hate taking photos, in general.

I have been on psych meds since 1995, and one of my meds made it so that my hands shake a little bit all the time.

I am no longer on that medication, but my hands still shake.

So I have to take 4 to 5 photos of each item to get at least one good photo.

It is really annoying.

CRX
CRX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 days ago
Joined: 04/02/2013 - 15:27
Posts: 4231
Location: Scotland

I usually keep images to 1608 width and 99%. It’s only polite Big Smile

I just hit reverse with a post/ thread full of huge file size images, wastes my data too.

jeff51
jeff51's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 min 19 sec ago
Joined: 03/26/2019 - 17:36
Posts: 1189
Location: Middle of Texas

G0OSE wrote:
kennybobby wrote:
macbook pro 17”, they all look the same and fit within the width of the post. This was fixed by Barkuti’s effort some time ago.

We are talking about image quality vs load time, not fit ( I believe Jeff? ). They all fit as he has limited the display size.
In a nutshell the images above all sized the same, after 1600 there is no benefit unless you full size it, by downloading, or viewing off site (right click – view image).

Yep.
All the images are sized to take up 95% of the frame. I’m just linking to different size images from Flickr.
These are different res. that Flikr picks for download options.
I upload to Flikr at 1280p. My uphill speed is way slower and I don’t want to grow old and die waiting on full sized images.
Then I link to that or smaller in my POSTs. Depending on how wide I want the image to be.
Usually 1024. Sometimes 800 if I’m doing part of the frame or side by side.

I’ll do another run with them all sized to say 600 pixels (?) using the BLF software.
To see how they look.
But as you say, the linked size will still control the amount of data being pulled down (I believe)
All the Best,
Jeff

sp5it
sp5it's picture
Offline
Last seen: 43 min 4 sec ago
Joined: 12/25/2012 - 07:51
Posts: 1426
Location: Poland

640×480 cause I browse forum on smartphone and this ancient engine can’t handle mobile browsing.
Mike

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin

 Anyone offended by my signature please fill Complaint Form. Thank you.

 If a lot of people listen to Slayer, the world would be a better place to live" - Tommy Wiseau

Scallywag
Scallywag's picture
Offline
Last seen: 26 min 13 sec ago
Joined: 01/11/2018 - 22:23
Posts: 2098
Location: Ohio, United States
jeff51 wrote:
So, Three Questions. How wide in pixels is your display? Where do you notice image degradation? How big is big enough?
  • 27” 1920×1080 – though I occasionally view things on my second monitor, a 21” 1080P that is portrait style.
  • 1600 is the first (smallest?) of your images that doesn’t look like steaming hot garbage to me.

I think the best solution to this – and unfortunately, it’s a lot of effort for the poster – is to use a low-ish quality “thumbnail” image that is itself a link to a high-quality version.

jeff51
jeff51's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 min 19 sec ago
Joined: 03/26/2019 - 17:36
Posts: 1189
Location: Middle of Texas

raccoon city wrote:

I hate taking photos, in general.


I have been on psych meds since 1995, and one of my meds made it so that my hands shake a little bit all the time.


I am no longer on that medication, but my hands still shake.


So I have to take 4 to 5 photos of each item to get at least one good photo.


It is really annoying.


I got old and shaky, then came down with a nerve malady that made it worse.
Using a fast shutter speed or tripod for daylight is my trick.
Or for my indoor shots (which is mostly all I do here). I use off camera flash.
Nothing like a 1/5000 second pop to freeze things.
All the Best,
Jeff
Pete7874
Pete7874's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 11/23/2011 - 16:47
Posts: 3471
Location: USA

G0OSE wrote:
Sadly that means hosting 2 versions – 1 to view here, and another, different URL for the full fat one.

Many photo hosting sites automatically generate links to smaller size images, so you only need to load the high quality one. For example, this is how it works with imgur:

Say this is the original:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGb.jpg

Adding ‘h’ (huge) at the end of the file name reduces the image to 1024 width:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGbh.jpg

Adding ‘l’ (large) reduces it to 640 width:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGbl.jpg

Adding ‘m’ (medium) reduces it to 320 width:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGbm.jpg

Adding ‘t’ (thumb) reduces it to 160 width:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGbt.jpg

Pete7874
Pete7874's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 11/23/2011 - 16:47
Posts: 3471
Location: USA

Quote:
How wide in pixels is your display?
1920×1200.

Quote:
Where do you notice image degradation?
below 1600

Quote:
How big is big enough?
On my current display, your images get scaled down to 1,245px × 831px, which means anything higher than this resolution would be a waste. Also, as others pointed out, let’s not confuse resolution with compression. You can have a 1600×1200 image that takes up less space/bandwidth than a 640×480 image if you set the compression high enough.
Barkuti
Barkuti's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 51 sec ago
Joined: 02/19/2014 - 14:46
Posts: 5564
Location: Alhama de Murcia, Spain

Excessively reducing image resolution or quality is ridiculous. Enjoying a good internet connection is very affordable nowadays, and devices are not a problem. Most of the time I browse this forum with my smartphone. However, of course I do choose how my smartphone operates and how do I want to see content or my apps to work. I always enforce zoom and use my smartphone, a 1920 × 1080 device, mostly in landscape.

Can't say I like what they have done with all newer generation smartphones, their aspect ratios are all beyond 1:2 which means their screen heights are less than half their width when in landscape, this limits their effective, useful screen height. It already is annoying to see the limited available screen height (in a 16:9 device!) when you face stupid websites with sticky bars and other unnecessary stuff on screen.

This fashion of a large screen to body ratio has lead to this shite. Screens are now more useless than ever due to the very out of proportion aspect ratios of nowadays. Bring me back 8:5 - 16:10 please…

Deleting a just published post causes the forum thread answer notification to fail. Thus, if you need to change your just published post, edit it. Thanks.

Please avoid fully quoting lenghty posts, namely with nested quotes. Trim quotes down to the essential. Helps with neatness and legibility. Thanks.

I recommend saying no to Covid vaccine. Listen to your soul. Innocent

Keanu Reeves may need your help. Join his Telegram channel here.

Pete7874
Pete7874's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 11/23/2011 - 16:47
Posts: 3471
Location: USA

raccoon city wrote:

I am no longer on that medication, but my hands still shake.


So I have to take 4 to 5 photos of each item to get at least one good photo.


It is really annoying.


Use fast enough shutter speed and camera/hand shake will not be an issue.
G0OSE
G0OSE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 09/03/2014 - 12:34
Posts: 2312
Location: UK SW

Pete7874 wrote:
raccoon city wrote:

I am no longer on that medication, but my hands still shake.


So I have to take 4 to 5 photos of each item to get at least one good photo.


It is really annoying.


Use fast enough shutter speed and camera/hand shake will not be an issue.

Or a tripod / variant of a tripod. Those bendy ones are particularly helpful. This one is Joby and quite expensive (depending on budget) – you can get cheaper copies like anything, but they won’t be quite so good.
They fit on to just about any object, branches etc

2A
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/18/2020 - 09:57
Posts: 569
Location: quarantained

Is there no software of solution that could automate the creation of pictures, optimize them, uploading them, creating thumbnails and then give you the correct code? If not – why not?

G0OSE
G0OSE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 09/03/2014 - 12:34
Posts: 2312
Location: UK SW

2A wrote:
Is there no software of solution that could automate the creation of pictures, optimize them, uploading them, creating thumbnails and then give you the correct code? If not – why not?

Most photo hosting sites do it anyway, it’s an option – just people either don’t know, or can’t do it (don’t understand the info – is confusing if you don’t know web photo terminology)
It is described above, and also imgbb do the same thing.
MoreLumens
MoreLumens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 10/25/2019 - 07:08
Posts: 1663
Location: Finland
G0OSE wrote:
1600 is the sweetspot between quality and loading time for me. Anything else is better viewed off site imo due to loading times – remember a lot of people use phones.

This. Others before that seems blurry and after 1600 they look the same. Using full hd monitor.

jeff51
jeff51's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 min 19 sec ago
Joined: 03/26/2019 - 17:36
Posts: 1189
Location: Middle of Texas

The first POST linked to different sized images and were POSTed using a 95% fixed width using:
“!{width:95%}https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50156427571_9e5e609b67_z.jpg!”

So now I’ll link to the same images. Each link is to a different sized image – as before.
The original width of the image is listed above the image.

I’m using the BLF software to set the image size to 450hx600w (or 600 max pixels).
Using this:
“!{height:450px; width:600px}https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50156427571_7b40767f3b_h.jpg!”

Once again answer 3 questions:
Where do you notice image degradation?

Where do you notice a load slowdown?

Do any of these fall outside of your column width?

All the Best,
Jeff

24mp Full Res Origional, 6000p x 4000p

2048

1600

1024

800, Max allowed at CPF

640

500

400

jeff51
jeff51's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 min 19 sec ago
Joined: 03/26/2019 - 17:36
Posts: 1189
Location: Middle of Texas

Also,
Are these large enough in your browser for a review?
Thanks,
Jeff

skinny_tie
skinny_tie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: 09/23/2017 - 03:14
Posts: 528
Location: Australia
G0OSE wrote:
Or a tripod / variant of a tripod. Those bendy ones are particularly helpful. This one is Joby and quite expensive (depending on budget) – you can get cheaper copies like anything, but they won’t be quite so good. They fit on to just about any object, branches etc

I have a Joby Gorillapod and I wish I could get the legs as straight as they are in that picture. I find it handy for quickly attaching a camera to railings and things like that, but it’s not really a substitute for a normal tripod.

skinny_tie
skinny_tie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: 09/23/2017 - 03:14
Posts: 528
Location: Australia

I think 1024 pixels wide is a good size for most images, with a link to a larger version if possible.

The appropriate size might depend on context – if it’s a particularly nice or detailed image then perhaps a larger size is appropriate, but if there are a lot of images in a post then I would prefer smaller versions with a link to full size image.

I do most of my BLF browsing on my phone while commuting by train (at least I did pre-COVID) and I appreciate smaller file sizes in that situation. On my iPad now I think even the 640 pixel wide version looks pretty reasonable.

Pages