Album picture limit
- Thread starter hkpierce
- Start date
sikwan
06 Tin Can
Which limit are you talking about and want to change?
Here are the settings...
Uploading simultaneously limit: 3
Pictures Remaining (max pictures / album): 60
Maximum File Size per Picture: 97.7KB
Maximum Picture Dimensions: 600 by 600 Pixels
These are the default settings and I have never played with them since inception.
Here are the settings...
Uploading simultaneously limit: 3
Pictures Remaining (max pictures / album): 60
Maximum File Size per Picture: 97.7KB
Maximum Picture Dimensions: 600 by 600 Pixels
These are the default settings and I have never played with them since inception.
I didn't know that there were so many different limits....
Number of pictures.
Is there there variable limit for the number of pictures to upload at the same time? The current number for a standard post is 5. But for the albums it is only 3.
I have been using the albums as a means of going past the 5 limit on embedding attachments in a single post, yet not lose an image link to a url that may disappear some time in the future.
Number of pictures.
Is there there variable limit for the number of pictures to upload at the same time? The current number for a standard post is 5. But for the albums it is only 3.
I have been using the albums as a means of going past the 5 limit on embedding attachments in a single post, yet not lose an image link to a url that may disappear some time in the future.
sikwan
06 Tin Can
We can increase both limits to infinity (unlimited), however there are two reasons why we have the limit...
1. Uploading will cause bandwidth issues. Imagine if we have a limit of 25 pictures for uploading. If 10 people were to upload 25 pictures each, they will get up and get coffee and the server will slow down due to bottlenecks cause by the upload.
2. Since there's a 5 photo limit/post and 10 post /page, this means fifty (500k) photos max when someone loads a certain page. If 100 people access that page at the same time, that's 5000 photos that can cause the bandwidth to take a hit.
Sometimes I travel and many others have slow internet (still). The satisfaction of seeing the content become unbearable if I have more than 50 pictures/page. I have tested this before.
I can raise the limits on the album, but to what? Do you have values in mind?
ps. There's a reason why the default was set to 3. I didn't set this and have never even looked into the album settings until you mentioned it.
1. Uploading will cause bandwidth issues. Imagine if we have a limit of 25 pictures for uploading. If 10 people were to upload 25 pictures each, they will get up and get coffee and the server will slow down due to bottlenecks cause by the upload.
2. Since there's a 5 photo limit/post and 10 post /page, this means fifty (500k) photos max when someone loads a certain page. If 100 people access that page at the same time, that's 5000 photos that can cause the bandwidth to take a hit.
Sometimes I travel and many others have slow internet (still). The satisfaction of seeing the content become unbearable if I have more than 50 pictures/page. I have tested this before.
I can raise the limits on the album, but to what? Do you have values in mind?
ps. There's a reason why the default was set to 3. I didn't set this and have never even looked into the album settings until you mentioned it.
I am not sure what would be new about the band-width issue.
For posts, there are two ways to put in images: a) as an attachment (current limit is 5) and b) as an IMG link (currently I don't know of any limit). When most desktop applications go to a thread, it seems that the attached and linked images are all uploaded in the batch of 10 posts. That can be a lot of images per 10 post batch, such as Midwest Drifter's Australian travelogue is currently doing (https://sprinter-source.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53190&page=27). So bandwidth may be related to location of the attachment. Attachments are presumably located on the same site as the rest of the forum; whereas the IMG links can be anywhere. If "where" an image is located infers bandwidth, then the forum may want to encourage the use of forum-based albums to "store" those images. If location is not an issue, but bandwidth is, then that implies the number of linked images need to be limited.
Forum-based albums are incredible awkward compared to other photo dump sites. These are not substitutes for dedicated photo sites such as Google's Photos. A forum based album serves largely one purpose as far as I can tell - if the images are linked into threads of the same forum, then the likelihood the link will be broken is significantly diminished. Once uploaded, these albums' inventories do not create a bandwidth problem. So I don't see the issue of the number of image limitation on albums creating a bandwidth issue unless there was some ability to mass up- or download files. I don't see either of those as options - and I do not propose that given what I see as the main purpose of the albums.
I do not see many people using the album option, so I do not believe that a numerical limit means much either in terms of storage space or bandwidth. How about 500?
With regard to upload limit into an album, the current limit is 3. I would suggest at least match the post limit of 5. 10 would be nice - but there is some computational time involved as album uploads also resize pictures to max of 600*600.
For posts, there are two ways to put in images: a) as an attachment (current limit is 5) and b) as an IMG link (currently I don't know of any limit). When most desktop applications go to a thread, it seems that the attached and linked images are all uploaded in the batch of 10 posts. That can be a lot of images per 10 post batch, such as Midwest Drifter's Australian travelogue is currently doing (https://sprinter-source.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53190&page=27). So bandwidth may be related to location of the attachment. Attachments are presumably located on the same site as the rest of the forum; whereas the IMG links can be anywhere. If "where" an image is located infers bandwidth, then the forum may want to encourage the use of forum-based albums to "store" those images. If location is not an issue, but bandwidth is, then that implies the number of linked images need to be limited.
Forum-based albums are incredible awkward compared to other photo dump sites. These are not substitutes for dedicated photo sites such as Google's Photos. A forum based album serves largely one purpose as far as I can tell - if the images are linked into threads of the same forum, then the likelihood the link will be broken is significantly diminished. Once uploaded, these albums' inventories do not create a bandwidth problem. So I don't see the issue of the number of image limitation on albums creating a bandwidth issue unless there was some ability to mass up- or download files. I don't see either of those as options - and I do not propose that given what I see as the main purpose of the albums.
I do not see many people using the album option, so I do not believe that a numerical limit means much either in terms of storage space or bandwidth. How about 500?
With regard to upload limit into an album, the current limit is 3. I would suggest at least match the post limit of 5. 10 would be nice - but there is some computational time involved as album uploads also resize pictures to max of 600*600.
sikwan
06 Tin Can
Uploading to Sprinter-Source.com server, we have this...
5 picture upload limit, 5 pictures per post, 10 posts per page = 50 photos max per page load.
-Bandwidth decreases due to Sprinter-Source.com server, serving 50 photos per page load.
-Bandwidth hit comes from uploading and downloading.
Linking photos from a photo sharing site, we have this...
No limit to link in post.
-Bandwidth hit is (very) small because Sprinter-Source.com server is serving only text (and other misc. icons, etc.). Photo sharing site takes the blunt of the bandwidth.
-Caveats of course are well known. Linked pictures go away.
-Users love this and this is why a lot do it this way because they don't know or are not concerned if the pictures go away. Uploading to sharing site is easy because there's a larger limit than 5 per upload.
The New scenario (I think this is what you're asking) is, uploading pictures to Sprinter-Source.com server via the album...
Since there is no limit (now) on linking images, I will link 20 photos (in album), so that I can post once with 20 photos.
-Obviously this will work because we are circumventing the limit that we have on posts per page. Sprinter-Source.com server will serve the 20 photos, and even 100 photos if someone decides they want to do it per post.
We have plenty of disk space, so there's no issue on storage. Imagine if we had to serve videos. Serving videos is a major bandwidth hog and we won't be able to do it (without youtube) on one machine that Sprinter-Source.com currently reside on. Serving 100 photos to 100+ people simultaneously is like serving one video.
What is the 500 value for? Picture qty per album?
I have to look at the resize setting. That's the default and that should change to something reflective of the current 900px wide limit.
5 picture upload limit, 5 pictures per post, 10 posts per page = 50 photos max per page load.
-Bandwidth decreases due to Sprinter-Source.com server, serving 50 photos per page load.
-Bandwidth hit comes from uploading and downloading.
Linking photos from a photo sharing site, we have this...
No limit to link in post.
-Bandwidth hit is (very) small because Sprinter-Source.com server is serving only text (and other misc. icons, etc.). Photo sharing site takes the blunt of the bandwidth.
-Caveats of course are well known. Linked pictures go away.
-Users love this and this is why a lot do it this way because they don't know or are not concerned if the pictures go away. Uploading to sharing site is easy because there's a larger limit than 5 per upload.
The New scenario (I think this is what you're asking) is, uploading pictures to Sprinter-Source.com server via the album...
Since there is no limit (now) on linking images, I will link 20 photos (in album), so that I can post once with 20 photos.
-Obviously this will work because we are circumventing the limit that we have on posts per page. Sprinter-Source.com server will serve the 20 photos, and even 100 photos if someone decides they want to do it per post.
We have plenty of disk space, so there's no issue on storage. Imagine if we had to serve videos. Serving videos is a major bandwidth hog and we won't be able to do it (without youtube) on one machine that Sprinter-Source.com currently reside on. Serving 100 photos to 100+ people simultaneously is like serving one video.
What is the 500 value for? Picture qty per album?
I have to look at the resize setting. That's the default and that should change to something reflective of the current 900px wide limit.
autostaretx
Erratic Member
I get the slight feeling that hkpierce doesn't realize that any photos stored at sprinter-source (be they "attachments" or "albums") are served by sprinter-source, hence impact its bandwidth.
Links to off-site photos (like Picasa or wherever) are not "served" by sprinter-source, so they don't impact its bandwidth.
I'm a little bit amused by the album photos' limits... less than 100 kbytes per photo?
Compare and contrast to the "attached" photos: 500kbyte per photo ... so one 5-attachment post can entail 2.5 megabytes of bandwidth.
Sprinter-source could serve 25 album photos and only suffer the same bandwidth hit.
(memo: very few attached photos take the full 500 kbytes ... the training manual and parts catalog images i post are usually well below 100kbytes)
((i've sometimes gotten around the "five attachments" limit by combining multiple images into one taller "still within the limits" behemoth.))
fun
--dick
Links to off-site photos (like Picasa or wherever) are not "served" by sprinter-source, so they don't impact its bandwidth.
I'm a little bit amused by the album photos' limits... less than 100 kbytes per photo?
Compare and contrast to the "attached" photos: 500kbyte per photo ... so one 5-attachment post can entail 2.5 megabytes of bandwidth.
Sprinter-source could serve 25 album photos and only suffer the same bandwidth hit.
(memo: very few attached photos take the full 500 kbytes ... the training manual and parts catalog images i post are usually well below 100kbytes)
((i've sometimes gotten around the "five attachments" limit by combining multiple images into one taller "still within the limits" behemoth.))
fun
--dick
sikwan
06 Tin Can
SprinterSnale
'05 T1N 3500 - NorCalSprinterCampout
My albums collectively topped out at 100.
I've been deleting a few to add more. Think I will try host the upcoming campout photos from my website rather than delete forum album pictures that appear in old threads.
I've been deleting a few to add more. Think I will try host the upcoming campout photos from my website rather than delete forum album pictures that appear in old threads.
Per User CP. At the moment the limit seems to be a total picture limit regardless of the number of albums.
sikwan
06 Tin Can
New settings...
Uploading simultaneously limit: 10
Max pictures / user: 500
Maximum File Size per Picture: 500KB
Maximum Picture Dimensions: 900 by 900 Pixels
avanti
2022 Ford Transit 3500
Thanks! That is much better.
Related question:
Does the forum have the option of permitting the uploading of arbitrarily-large images that are then automatically resized to the 900x900 limit?
I realize that this would represent a hit during the upload of 10 large images, but it is a one-time cost and would greatly simplify the image upload process for unsophisticated users.
Related question:
Does the forum have the option of permitting the uploading of arbitrarily-large images that are then automatically resized to the 900x900 limit?
I realize that this would represent a hit during the upload of 10 large images, but it is a one-time cost and would greatly simplify the image upload process for unsophisticated users.
sikwan
06 Tin Can
Yes it does, but it's disabled. It's both a bandwidth and resource hog. The large image needs to be uploaded and then resized. On occasions it fails and the user repeats the process, again using up resources.
One place I would recommend using is google drive or photos. Those free photo sites don't get the revenue like google and google does not remove images after a certain time (at least for now).
avanti
2022 Ford Transit 3500
These, too, will pass.
