Attached Link: Opaque3D

Maybe I am the only one who has a problem with this but I'll post this anyway. I've been browsing the gallery and I've noticed that more and more people are posting bigger images. I know that a bigger image means "more detail" and such. Nevertheless when it comes to 3000x3000px images I think that's too much. Those take a while to download and then it's very annoying to scrool left-right-up-down to see the image (I am at 1600x1200 resolution and it's still a pain). A maximum image size (and file size) has been used on the marketplace for a long time. I think that could be also used for the image galleries. <---signature---> Free your Maya Opaque3D http://www.digital-opaque.net

The dimension of pictures is already displayed under the thumbnail in the gallery. If a picture is too big for you, why open it ?. There are already many restrictions to posting images. A limit to the dimensions of the thumbnails does make sense to preserve the look of the gallery. A limit to the size of the main image (in KB) does make sense to preserve disk space. A limit to the dimensions of the main image just does not make much sense to me.

I know I tend to try to keep my images non-left/right scrolling in regards to my screen rez, which is 1024x768. It does take some of the fun out of viewing others' works when you have to do a lot of scrolling to view them, but I don't think limiting the image dimensions is the answer. Some images just gotta be huge! :)

I think a limit on KB is a good idea. it really isn't necessary to have an image over 200kb. Perhaps a tutorial on compression on the upload page would be a good idea. As for the images over 800 wide I don't bother opening them.

OH come on Illsions you know that 'rosity is struggling here with their overwhelming generosity in providing this wonderful free service for all of us. I think a limit in image size would be acceptable. Perhaps they could charge $5 to upload images over a certain size. Could be a good money earner. Actually combine that with a Gallery pay-per-view scheme; maybe some of the money could go to the merchants whose origional and talented efforts have produced the components of the images.

**Quote:OH come on Illsions you know that 'rosity is struggling here with their overwhelming generosity in providing this wonderful free service for all of us.** That's a good point and I had already thought of that one but I didn't want to sound like I was telling the admins how to run their website... There are places where they set a filesize limit so that they can mantain some control over their bandwidth. <---signature---> Free your Maya Opaque3D http://www.digital-opaque.net

Ay, dios mio! Posting a 4000X4000 jpg under 512 kb in size? That would require such high jpeg compression that it would probably look like a blotchy nightmare of artifacts and banding. It would be almost as hard to look at as lime-green text.

I thought bandwidth WAS the issue for only allowing one upload per day? If not, then why are they charging $5 to have a higher upload limit? That is SURELY to cover bandwidth costs. Someone else did the math on this in another thread..when you have a lot of people uploading large images contsantly, and others requesting those images while surfing the galleries, bandwidth on a place like this can turn into a nightmare...exponentially! And bandwith overages can be EXPENSIVE. I know I wouldn't want to pay the bill here for bandwidth..and I run 5 dedicated servers as well as about 40 sites and have bandwidth coming out my ears. I still think the one a day is too restrictive...perhaps X many a week would be more convenient to artists, although that may pose a programming problem on the technical end. If its possible to limit downloads to 2-3 times like at DAZ, then why not the reverse? It IS possible using a SQL backend to track it. When you hit 7 in a week period, thats it. Bandwidth would still be the same, but convenience would be better. I know it bugs me to not be able to upload 2 or 3 at a time...but then again, I only post about once a month. One reason to control overall size (not weight, although that IS an issue) is to preserve the site layout as well as make it easy for people to view images. Large images that make me scroll forever simply confuse my overall interpretation of the piece, since I cant see it "in context"...only in sequential "chunks". I assume the reason to post is for others to view. So why make it hard on them? 4000 x 4000 is QUITE generous since most people, even if at VERY high resolution, don't set their screens over 1100-1200 or so. Even at 1600, a 4000 x 4000 image is still a scrolling pain. Pick a reason...any reason...above...all are valid and have nothing to do with raining on anyone's parade..its just simple math, economics and usability...skills anyone running a site should employ. It's not irrational to simply ask the question.

Some colors don't compress well...electric blue comes to mind as does primary red. Because of that, sometimes a large file size ends up being necessary on some images. A 200kb limit would be unreasonable in those circumstances...unless you want a gallery full of crap?

Ohh...and also...I agree..a large image compressed to 200kb could kill it. Yes jpegs are lossy...but if you learn some tricks you CAN get an image down to a reasonable size under the 512 limit AND keep the width/height within reason as well. If people feel they MUST post enormous images to get the detail they need, why not get some cheap hosting and load up the original ones there in all their glory...with a link for people who are interested. There's always more than one way to skin a cat and keep it happy too.

AFAIK they can fit all the gallery images on one 60 GB server, and the bandwidth down from the image servers is less than 300 KB/sec, so they're not even using a full T1 line there. Which is good - keep typical capacity at 30% of maximum expected capacity. The bandwidth up to the galleries is probably negligible - 3-5 KB/sec.

Illusions you seem to be under the misapprehension that this is some sort of community or free site. By reducing the maximum size of images and having a pay scheme for the larger images. Same kind of idea as the more than one gallery upload a day thing, Renderosity could make more profits. Don't you want the business to do well?

Attached Link: http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/98/26/index0a_page5.html?tw=design

Hmm...well..once again a server problem ate my post. Twice. And that is just my point... If someone is monitoring and taking care with the capacity, then they ARE aware of bandwidth or storage issues. Perhaps the limits were imposed not only because of the community request, but also to kill several birds with one stone..make people happy, make some money on storage and uploading AND have extra cashflow to cover bandwidth issues. If the community doesn't communicate with the management about usability issues, that interferes with their "capability to decide" what to do. My problem here (off topic in regard to illusions) is with people who act like the pot calling the kettle black. The issue was image dimension and its effect on usability in order to open a discussion. Telling us as a generalization that imposing limitations which are pretty industry standard is "mawkish, maudlin, shoving things down your throat and siphoning every last drop of pleasure out of this place" is pretty insulting. I fail to see how implementing tighter standards for better usability if the community requests them makes this place a "bland playground". That, according to you, is why the first limit was imposed. You also brought up the bandwidth and storage issue, not the original post. How do you accuse someone of not knowing anything about sites or maintenance when you don't even know them? You speak as if you have some inside knowledge we are all not privy to and ice the cake with a holier than thou attitude, complaining about someone taking YOUR pleasure away while telling those same people that if it intereres with THEIR pleasure to go take a hike. Simply because a problem has not been "offically" posted, does not mean that there isn't one. Case in point...last evening I couldn't even connect to the home page because of an "SQL error- too many connections." I was returning here to see if anyone had replied to THIS topic! The forums take forever to change pages sometimes. The amount of connections and the traffic going back and forth ARE server issues, whether the management cares to declare this or not. Personally, I think they made a semi-right decision. It would be better served by making it more convenient, but that's just my opinion. Back to topic....for Agiel and simdragon... "A limit to the size of the main image (in KB) does make sense to preserve disk space. A limit to the dimensions of the main image just does not make much sense to me." Image dimension and weight (kb) go hand in hand. Reducing the dimensions will generally reduce the weight automatically. A compression and image preservation tutorial while doing so would be an excellent addition to this subject. Perhaps we could all post some good links on tools and tutorials covering that subject and bring something positive out of this discussion. I'll start.. http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/98/26/index0a_page5.html?tw=design

Any tutorials on jpg compression would be good! I find that sometimes that image dimension and weight (kb) do not go hand in hand, ONLY because members feel they need to save their jpg at the highest possible quality, which makes for un-necessarily Kb-big jpg's... I use mostly Thumbsplus (or IrfanView) for converting/saving to jpg's, it uses a percentage when saving as a jpg. I reccomend 85%-90% quality to members. Any higher and (most of the time) you will see no better quality, but your KB will exponentially grow... *Point is (if there truly is one here in my rambling...) that cutting down on dimensions won't always cut down on Kb too much as some would still save at 100%. BUT, education on jpg compression just might do the trick... ---------- Yes, Renderosity brought on the limited daily upload because the majority of members wanted that (or didn't care either way), because they didn't want to see their pics buried so quickly. Of course, there would be members who would want and probably even suggest paying some $ for more uploads, so that was put into place in case anyone wanted it, is all. ---------- No, Renderosity has NO problem with server space. We had some problems with site speed in the recent past, but we have seemed to find the right balance now to keep things flowing as well as possible. I'm not saying it's perfect for everyone all the time, but its now overall better. (famous last words, lol) AgentSmith Mod

::hides Mr. Anderson:: Well....very good point AgentSmith...about the "people still saving at 100%". That is probably very true. I work at about 80% because here I am doing "art" and of course want it to look as good as possible (within reason). I use a lot heavier compression on web page images for clients for the obvious speed of download reasons. Probably closer to 50-70. If I have an image that can't hold at 70, I know I need to rework it or rethink the use of that image if it is a large one. I use Photoshop's "Save for Web" option now that I have upgraded to CS, but I find it quite slow (program wise) when saving them out. I am still deciding between this and my old standby...ProJpeg from BoxTopSoftware. ProJpeg lets you decide if you would like to put a bit of smoothing on to help with dithering and it also lets you assign a photoshop mask to allow you to dither the background heavily while NOT dithering the focus or subject of the image which I find very useful. Its a Photoshop plugin so its very convenient. I'm not sure if it plugs into anything else. That may not work for the artwork here but it quite often helps me maintain filesize when doing site images. They also do a SuperGif thing (I think that's the name of it), but I don't see too many gifs around here since everything seems to be photo-quality which would not be suitable for gifs...although MAYBE some of the fractals? Lastly...what about the option of having 7 a week instead of 1 a day? Has there been any discussion on that topic that you know of? I suppose that might defeat the purpose of slowing down the galleries though on a dialy basis. Has there ever been (before the new rule) a case of any one person "overloading" the galleries by posting like 30 pictures or more at once? I still think privately hosted galleries are a good way to go if you want to display exactly the way YOU want. Hosting is getting VERY cheap these days. For 5 bucks a month you could do whatever you wanted size wise, but still display here for exposure. I even like to see some people do "detail" callouts where they show a larger view of some intricate detail and the work that went into it. I often find an artist I like and then go view their whole gallery here and then go so far as to go visit their private site to see more or different images than they might have posted here. (Hey..sometimes the really good ones give ya freebies as a door prize for visiting!) A case in point would be Giana's work. I spent 2 hours crawling through her private site the other night after only seeing one of her freestuff contributions. She only has like 1 image posted here but it was so good I HAD to see more. There she's got them organized by months and years, which is a bit better than just in order of upload like here. If you don't know how to build your own site, people like me develop systems which walk you right through it with no need for additional software, so technical skill shouldn't be a problem with too many people there. If you can handle poser and have a browser, you've got enough skill to build a basic site. You can also implement higher security for your images if you have the knowhow. Anyway...back to renderland for the night... Cheers all! PS...'more links as promised.. http://www.winsoftmagic.com/ajc_features.html http://www.boxtopsoft.com/projpeg.html

Just like nudity, you have the choice already of whether or not you'll view the image. Like Illusions pointed out, the dimensions are listed under the thumbnail and you then have a choice. This site is restrictive enough already (for some) without adding more rules.

Alright...I see no matter what is said, illusions chooses to be rude. Thank you for the "eat my shorts" comment...well done. No point in arguing with someone who only wants to stir up trouble. I'm not "insisting" on any type of change..simply discussing possibilities and offering options and/or assistance, which is more than I can say for some people. Also, I've been here for several years..so that point is moot...nice try though. Another link for you all...Works on gifs and jpegs..you can see several samples on screen and decide which one suits you best, save it and upload it wherever you need to. Best of all its free and quick, for those who don't http://www.netmechanic.com/accelerate.htm

sorry bout that..click the button too soon... end of that post should have been "for those who don't want to purchase extra software."

illusions and Agent Smith are correct in their statements about the site restricting the number of uploads to 1 a day due to the HUGE amount of uploads and complaints from members that their images were being buried within minutes of posting.

The one upload a day has really made a difference in the gallery viewing and it has also helped the Mods, especially the Poser Gallery Moderators.

As to the size of the images, that is going to come down to a personal preference - I personally do not like images that I have to scroll to view - but I have members ask me to create my images larger so they can see the dee-tails.

So, again, it is just a matter of taste - no right or wrong. It is harder for members who are on dial-up internet connections as it takes longer for a huge image to upload.

But again, as it has already been pointed out, that is why the size of the image file is listed under the thumb. So that if you are on a slow connection, you will know that it will take longer to view those images. Again, that is something to be worked out between each artist and the viewers.

I an artist finds that their viewing hits are down on larger images - they can always adjust the size of the images and see if that helps :)

Also - Just want to toss in the following Reminder :]

---

Member/User Conduct:

Members and users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive and respectful of others at all times. Additionally, we would hope that each member/user would do their best to facilitate a culture of collaboration and positive reinforcement, so that we can all share our passion for art while realizing our personal ambitions, and developing friendships.

---

Thanks for everyone's input on this matter - and yes the Admins do read and take into consideration all discussion - and impliment changes to make the Rosity Community an enjoyable place for everyone :)

Dee-Marie

This account is in no way a clone. It's registered at more than one place...same name...same person. Just because I registered in the last few months doesn't mean I haven't surfed the site regularly before joining as a member. But...congrats..you win...the thread is now a flame war. I tried to get something positive out of the discussion by being helpful, providing info and seeking feedback. But all I got was irritation for my trouble. You can continue to being insulting and condecending all you like. But you might want to have a look at your own post I came across in another forum just after you started harping on me here... 94. Re: ... Soft Bodies thumbnail too provacative? by illusions on 1/8/04 20:49 Hmmmm...I read this entire thread...my conclusion...the rude way some members treat each other is much more offensive than that image. No need for anyone to be obnoxious because they can't convince everyone they should get their way or that their opinion is the only one that matters. ;^P I think we've had about enough of this back and forth bickering. That's me done...if anyone needs any help, IM's are welcomed. Insults are not.

Second Reminder :]

---

Member/User Conduct: Members and users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive and respectful of others at all times. Additionally, we would hope that each member/user would do their best to facilitate a culture of collaboration and positive reinforcement, so that we can all share our passion for art while realizing our personal ambitions, and developing friendships. - - - - - -

Thanks again for everyone's input on this matter - and yes the Admins do read and take into consideration all discussion - and impliment changes to make the Rosity Community an enjoyable place for everyone :) Sincerely, Dee-Marie