I think 200 k is too small to get any picture detail to show up without zooming the camera in poser to an extreme level... I know renderosity could care less what I say here, But I really think other people may dislike this file size retriction too. How about alotting each member a files size allowance, when they use it up its gone until they roill over again. for example if I can post 3 gallery images in one 24 hour period of 200 k each then let me freaking post one 600 k image in the poser forum for petes's sake.

They're probably just trying to keep bandwidth under control... I'd hate to see the usage for Renderosity... 3d-CC pulled down so much I kept getting in trouble. I think that's where the gallery comes in play... why not post your image in the WIP gallery or Poser gallery, then post a link to it in your message... something like: "For the larger image go here" Gallery size: "The full image should be between 100 x 100 and 4000 x 4000 pixels and be less than 512 KB in size"

I don't have a clue to what happened to the green in his eyes.

If the forums were cluttered up with large, heavy files, we'd sit here forever waiting for them to load. 200k should be plenty for any image in the forums. And with the traffic the forums get, you'd be surprised how quickly bandwidth (and the cost thereof) adds up.

And remember most participants are still on dialup. 200k itself takes a heckuva long time to d/l for a forum message. Jpg can mess with the colors sometimes. What do you use? I've found Photoshop Save for Web excellent for color fidelity.

And since poser is about graphics,detail, high resolution mapping, yadda yadda yadda, The it seems really pointless tohave a poser forum whereyou can't take advantage of posting high resolution detailed images.

I still think 200 k is a bit small, And I know Im not the only one, that doesnot like a 200 k file size rule. Sure alot of people are still on dile up, then those people are less likly to upload a huge image, so where is your bandwith problem?

yeah the gallery is not a problem but having to link to it is an extra step.

I got your point, Im listening, Im just pretending Im not.

Being one of those on dial-up, it's the time it takes to download a pic (ie, look at it) - if it's over 200k - that bothers me. That's why I like the 200k limit. If you want people to look at a bigger version of your work, why not include a link in your 'under picture comment' to your own webspace, where you can put pics that are as big as you want them to be? That way, you're also responsible for your own bandwidth use...

actually I think 200k is too much, thats what the gallery is for.. besides, 90% of the posts here are about someone complaining, a technical question, or the ever so popular where can I find so and so...

Why not create your own web site and pay for the bandwidth usage that large file downloads require? Renderosity is giving away bandwidth free so that you can show your artwork. In the description put where the full size glorious wonderful 2000x4000 image can be seen, then if someone wants to see it, they can. I dunno where you got the 200k file rule. When I read it it said JPG less than 512kb 100x100-4000x4000 and thumbs 50x50-200x200 15kb. I wont go into texture size versus distance and size of output file, I'll let someone else do that, but play with the JPG compression settings, or don't. Nobody is making you upload your images, however, there do need to be limits.

"Sure alot of people are still on dile up, then those people are less likly to upload a huge image, so where is your bandwith problem?" Bandwidth has nothing (or very little) to do with how many people upload an image. The bandwidth is used by how many people view that image. So here's the maths: Post a) has a 100k image and 50 people view it. That's 50x100=5000k, or just under 5mb in bandwidth. Post b) has a 200k image and 100 people view it. That's 20,000k, about 19mb in bandwidth. You can see how quickly it adds up. Given that there are anywhere between 50 and 150 threads in the poser forum ALONE every day, if they all had images over 200k... well, you can see where I'm going with this. The overheads can be huge. PS Feel free to sanity-check my maths, it's not my best subject ;-D

solution: post your high res image in your gallery and copy the link to the image in your post in the forum. people that want to see the high res version can then be warned if they are on dialup and not have to eat up their time, you get to show your large image at a resolution that is more to your liking. why is this an issue again?

I think mesh_magick is talking about uploading images to the forum, not the gallery..

I think for various reasons, one should make pics small. For one: Often there are complaints about stolen art. High res big pics are at a higher risk to be stolen because they can be used for prints or other purposes. Second: Pics, that are to wide and/or high for the screen can not be viewed without scrolling. I think that does more damage to the image, than making it smaller and compressing it a bit. Third: This storage space is for free.... I raise the saturation and contrast a bit before the shrinking process to improve the final image. Then I make the image dimensions smaller. At last I use the option "save for web" to compress it with the lowest possible loss.

I think it's a good idea indeed the bandwith and there are people with a dial conection if we also in the forums post large images then Renderosity would be slow as it can be. There is a product showcase gallerie for this but this is a forum not a gallerie. A solution? Buy your own website pay a lot and post as many as you like. It's very expensive to have a site so Renderosity is right in this one.

I don't agree with you, Mesh Magick. 200kb is plenty enought and it isn't so difficult to resize an image without losing detail. Use the gallery if you want to post something bigger or as others pointed out, buy your web space and use that.

I hate it when people post huge images in the forums. It stretches the page width and makes the text hard to read. Pictures in the forums should just be little illustrations to make a point, not massive display pieces. Otherwise, use the gallery and post a link. 200 k is MORE than enough for forum purposes.

I did not think that this forum was for finished works? I thought it was ok to show what you have been doing or asking for help and maybe a thumbnail link to the gallery to see the actual image. In that case 200k is more than enough. Use the gallery for larger files or get your own website.

200K for a forum thread image upload is way too much - you could give us a link to a gallery image.

I'd just like to add my penny to this thread. I've been posting to the gallery here at R'osity for years. Most my images are huge in size, but not necessarily in file size. BekaVal has the right idea - optimise your images! I use all high res textures in my images, along with custom made bump maps - some of the resultant renders are upto 32Mb as Tif files, but when optimised in Photoshop, they come down to as little as 200K! All it takes is a little patience, and asking the right questions. Eveyone is right when they say that the forum limit should be 200k - in fact I reckon 100k would be fine, as the forums are meant purely as a means of communication of ideas, and not a showcase - thats what the galleries are for. Bandwidth is a major issue - I'm struggling myself with my own site - do I leave my images big as I intended them, or optimise them to ensure the maximum number of people get to see them, due to my bandwidth restrictions? Of course the later is the best option...

200k is plenty big enough. I have no problem adding small, high quality pic in the forum. I'm on dial up, no choice in the area I live in. It can be a real pain trying to read threads with a lot of pic. What I think is worst are the big renders posted here in the forum. I have to scroll for an hour to read it. I have skipped most of these threads lately.

Shouldn't we have a whining forum ?

Attached Link: http://www.pppr.sk/rainbow/programs.html

Needlessly rude comments like that aren't exactly the best way to solicit help or influence people. :-)

Anyway, one should indeed optimize images posted here. Remember, resolution is not the only determiner of file size! The more you learn about that, the better you'll be able to create fine-looking files at Web-friendly sizes.

If you want to discuss some detail of a large image in the forums, simply post a crop of that detail, rather than the whole image. As others have said, the forum is not a gallery. Check the link I'm including for an EXCELLENT free utility called JPG Cleaner. It removes most of the "background noise" data from .jpeg files that programs like Photoshop tend to automatically generate. And if you have Photoshop, use the "Save for Web" function for filesize control. I always use that function for gallery thumbnails, followed by a JPG Cleaner clean-up to remove the remaining unnecessary 35kb that Photoshop still includes.

This shouldn't have to be said, but we owe Renderosity gratitude for these forums and for hosting our images in the galleries. The incessant attacks on site policies in recent weeks have, more often than not, ignored the fact that the site owners and admins don't owe us a darn thing, aside from common civility and decent customer service related to the marketplace. IMO we do get that, and a lot more as members.

MM, I noticed that most of the pictures you tend to post use no jpeg cvompression. You'd be amazed how much a little bit of compression (say, 75-85% quality) can take down the filesize without costing you anything really noticeable in the way of quality.

xoconostle, Thanks for that link. Very useful-looking app. mac

Any digital artist worth their salt should be capable of making a crisp 200k image given decent tools. Best approach: render much bigger than needed, save from Poser as tif or PSD. Resize in Pshop. Use Photoshop's Save-to-web to save it to jpg. USE the compression in save-to-web. I've used as low as 35 and still gotten crisp results. Poser's jpg export is terrible ..avoid it :) If you absolutely MUST post larger images you can post in the gallery ..which after all, is what its for

Was that from 'Lyrra the Uncompressed'? LOL. Just j/k. mac

Mesh, take a look at my gallery. every picture except for one is under 200k and quality wasnt lost. http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Yes&Artist=lobo75

I was not being rude Xoconostle I was making a joke, Since you did not have enough information to formulate I was being rude then your rude to jump to conclusions and post them, so there.

Are you saying Im rendering this too low a compression in poser so the file size is comming out big?

"I was not being rude Xoconostle I was making a joke, Since you did not have enough information to formulate I was being rude then your rude to jump to conclusions and post them, so there." So there! LOL. Oh, man... Good ole MM. Actually, in spite of my occasional feistiness, I have better manners than you by a long shot, but that's okay. I do apologize for misunderstanding your joke. Oh, and although you forgot to thank me, you are very welcome for the friendly help I attempted to provide. ;-)

Render it at full quality in poser, then bring it into either Photoshop or PSP using the Save for Web option (or, in PaintShopPro, Optimize/Export JPEG feature)

Interesting, I thought the size limit was 500K not 200?

500 in the gallery 200 here in the forum

When trying to squeeze my file sizes down I first of all create the biggest render in poser and save as a .PSD In photoshop I do my postwork and save the psd. I then create a second copy of the psd and flatten it then save as a Jpeg. I then do a resize of the image to around about 1000 pixels wide to reduce the amount of side scrolling when posted to the galleries. When I save again I jump across to windows explorer to check the filesize of the image (don't trust the size quoted in photoshop) If too big I then go back to photoshop and then do file jump to image ready. In image ready I choose 4 up and look at the 4 options make some adjustments to 1 of them to give a better compression but still keeping the high quality and then save. I used to make the mistake of only rendering the poser file to 1024 X 768 and save as a tiff. The problem I had with tiffs is that every now and then I would have gaps left in the render (don't know why?) since I have increased the render size to the maximum size in poser 4 and save as a psd I have not had that problem.