Hey folks--

I've been getting complaints about the image size when uploading a gallery image. Can you please do me a favor? Please browse other websites and view their image restrictions and let me know.

If we come to a consensus, I can bring it up to our programmers.

Let me know. Thanks so much for your help!

:)
Checked some main sites for you.

Deviant Art - No size restriction.
RuntimeDNA 2500 x 2500
Daz3D- No image size restrictions but file size limit 400 mb.

From deviantArt FAQ #753: "Image based submissions cannot be larger than 30MB".

Thanks English Bob! I forgot to check the MB file limits. 30 MB is quite generous.

Indeed it is. I generally post slightly compressed JPEGs which rarely exceed 1MB even though they're larger in pixel dimensions than most people's monitors. Renderosity should concern themselves with the file size in the first instance, I'd suggest, since that would determine the amount of storage they would need to allow for.

DeviantArt is unlimited unrestricted in Size and Memory

FantasyAttic is I believe 3000x3000 @ 1.49meg

DreamslayerArts I can't remember the Limits when I was a member(actually I'm still a member just haven't been there for years) but I remember my posts there were 1920x1080 around 1meg and I'm sure I was pushing the limit as I always do

There are several dedicated Fractal Sites I use but those probably aren't relevant to the discussion since it's Fractals only

If you want a Ballpark figure the original Limit of 4000x4000 for sixe was never a problem but 512k was.....go back to 4K x 4K and double or triple the 512k memory limit and I doubt there would be many if any complaints

@ Hope:

Consensus? That would imply that everyone has a slightly different opinion and we'll all give a little and meet somewhere in the middle where everyone is solidly behind the new choice. Arbitration would be a better word to describe what's needed here. You're on one side, we're on the other. Presenting this as "Hope and the Artists" against "The Programmers" is disingenuous. Apparently Renderosity thinks the new size limit is a cool thing. Everyone who's posted a concern in the Forum in the past two days thinks it's somewhere between "Well, that sucks," and "That's it, I'm leaving."

And you want us to do market research for you and find out what other websites are offering? Didn't you have somebody do that before the PTB decided the new size limit was a good thing? Or are you just going for "second worst?" Asking us to report back on other websites smacks of "Okay, if you don't like this, go find something better."

I'm hanging in and waiting to see what's going to happen, but I'm not too hopeful when you and Kimberly act like these are minor little glitches and as soon as they're solved we're all going to love this site again. We have some serious concerns, and it would be nice to feel like those of you in the office were treating us with respect. People are looking for reasons to stay, and many artists have given you bullet-point lists on what they need to see in order for that to happen. Image size seems to be pretty high on everybody's list.

I realize you're in a tough position, being the face of Renderosity while all this is going on, but a little less cheerleading and some indication that you aren't just trying to brush us off would go a long way toward calming the waters.

Thanks for listening ...
Tara

I too have extreme concerns about the reduced size limitations currently imposed post-revamp. As a poster of mainly panoramic photos I struggled with the old size lmitations but was able to post work which was of 'adequate' quality. Now I'm sure you can appreciate that the current size requirements are totally inadequate for those wanting to post panoramas.

In light of this highly anticipated 'revolutionary' website update, would it not be fair to expect more rather than less? I personally find it acceptable to have kept the old dimensions and up the 512kb limit. As the previous posters already highlight, Renders competitors offer attractive alternatives should these limitations stand.

I suppose that no dimension limitation and 1Mo max is a fair deal.

Auto thumbnail generation

Yes to Tara (auntietk). And to the others. I managed artists years back, and in several arts; and while we didn't have websites, we had gallery shows, presentations, etc, so yes, I respect the great effort the staff put into this project: But it feels like you did it in a vacuum. One of the reasons artists like this site is BECAUSE it has a 4000 x 4000 size limit. And the ability to write longer descriptions. And for many other things. I've been on other sites, and there will ALWAYS be some that offer no size limits, and those that offer smaller ones: But RR offered 4000 x 4000, and that was one of the reasons we loved this place. And, as you can see, there are other major issues too. If this were just the "look" of the site, it wouldn't be as serious: But you've changed essentials, and it's hard to see how it's better for Art---even while it's better for advertising. I agree about the profusion of nude and partially nude models. It's not that we're prudes---a number of us drew from nude models for many years---it's that it makes us feel we're secondary to the models. Please take all of this to heart. These complaints are about the very substance of the site. Thanks, Mark

Quote 4221161
One of the reasons artists like this site is BECAUSE it has a 4000 x 4000 size limit. And the ability to write longer descriptions. And for many other things. I've been on other sites, and there will ALWAYS be some that offer no size limits, and those that offer smaller ones: But RR offered 4000 x 4000, and that was one of the reasons we loved this place. And, as you can see, there are other major issues too. If this were just the "look" of the site, it wouldn't be as serious: But you've changed essentials, and it's hard to see how it's better for Art---even while it's better for advertising
Unquote.

The whole point of the changes to the Rendo site are (IMO) commercially driven.
Rendo exists to make revenue by selling through the marketplace....and like it or not, artists uploading and sharing their work online through rendo is not their primary, but very much a secondary concern.
Apart from gallery images potentially publicising vender products it is probable that rendo view the artist galleries as an unwanted necessity to their web space.
In fact , the thousands of contributor uploads probably eat up acres of potential advertising and market webspace
Ever since I started viewing gallery images, folk have been complaining about the 512 kb restriction....so rendo are already fully aware that there is an issue with contributors existing upload limitations to the galleries.
Yet, instead of listening and enhancing the gallery limitations, it appears that they have instead restricted them......because they really do not appreciate your works as part of their commercial package.
If rendo really appreciated your efforts to create and display images on their site then they would provide the best upload criteria on the web...wouldn't they?

Rendo is REALLY shooting themselves in the foot with this, since the gallery is used to showcase and advertise products, including WIPs and promos not found on the product page.
Methinks this is going to drive some vendors away-- probably not any of the main/top ones, but plenty of others. Some left during the last site design.
I know I've said "what was Rendo thinking?!" before, but this really takes the cake.

If I can't speak for the other vendors here, I'll at least speak for myself. We want customers, and we want happy customers. We want to be part of and contribute to a fantastic community. We want to see our products in renders. We also want to see renders and images that inspire us, regardless.

I don't believe the Gallery should be treated as a 'secondary' concern. It may very well be the heart of the site. We only sell products because people see a reason to use them, because they are tools for the customer to create something of their own. We are part of a process, not the end product in itself.

Make it a goal to create a gallery that is equal to or better than those of your competitors. Listen to the users and make the RO gallery the place to be. This will contribute to making RO the place to shop - and in the long run even the place to advertise. These things are very connected, and a long term view is required here. Content - and users - are king.

So for image size restrictions, what you can afford server space-wise is the real question here.

A file size restriction seems more reasonable than an image pixel size restriction. If you need to have that, I would say increase it or by the very least leave it at what existed before the site update. Psychologically speaking, people accept the status quo and are pleased by improvements. On the other hand, creating restrictions that were not there before when progress is expected tends to make people unhappy.

Oh, yeah, Frequency brings up another good point to my previous post-- when people post renders with a vendor's products, that is basically like free advertising for them. So to add an additional facet onto the level of insanity that Rendo's decision represents, this move will hurt vendor sales.

I have bought a great many items from this site after seeing them in other renders I dont want to peer at them with a magnifying glass to see if an items worth buying .i upload to cornucopia 3d there file limits are no larger than 2000px and 2MB max files size

All in all I think that the old 4000x4000 and 512k AND 4000 characters' comment size is a fair solution. If the artists leave RR, the vendors (most of them are artists too) will follow, because the artists are also THE BUYERS!!!

I quote:
"If we come to a consensus, I can bring it up to our programmers."

Yeah, that ALWAYS works. That and being patient.......

Bring back 4000 X 4000. Period.

Read what Tara said. Then read it again.

This is unbelievable!

Ditto, Rod. And many others above. Why a consensus? Why did you lower the size to begin with? What for? Were you hurting for that space? Don't you see how many artists love to upload large images---isn't that enough reason to keep it? Honestly, it doesn't matter if other sites do otherwise: We stayed here in part for that size. If people don't want to zoom, they don't have to. But if they WANT to, they can see the glory of a large piece of art, with all the resolution and inspiration of the artist: Why would you WANT to lower that size? It was embraced by numerous enormously dedicated artists---why lower it? And so dramatically? (Ditto the Description length too.) I'm with Rod, Tara and others.

I like the file size idea without any image size restrictions like DAZ 3D has it. The gallery there is great, it was bad once with image size restrictions, a reason why I never had a gallery there until you Rendo came up with your new restrictions. Now I have a gallery at DAZ 3D and it looks really good, is easy to handle and has really good organisation and looks tidy and neat and structured.

Well I do not know how others think about a file size of 400MB. That sounds realy huge to me but others do better and more high quality renders than I do, so maybe 400MB is good.

@4221110

I sign this statement 100%

I'm a writer, not a 3d Graphic Artist... but

DeviantArt: no size restriction, no character count restriction
Daz: no size restriction
Wattpad, no character restriction... in fact, I've not found a single art site that restricted the writers to a character count.

What am I supposed to do with a 1000 character count?????????

Character count takes far less room then an image. Do you think the writers don't matter? I have a whole gallery of Favorites that are fan art generated from my stories. And since Rendo is so short-sighted and can't understand; it means writing is a sales generating activity. All that fan art needs products, which are purchased. And of course there are tons of comic/manga/scifi/fantasy story book writers, which you've killed, that generate sales for their illustrations.

Can this upgrade have been any less though out??

Absolutely go back to old dimensions 4k x 4k and if you did see it in your hearts of stone to change the file size from 512k to 1024k or 1.5 meg you'd have artists jumping for joy instead of wanting to rip your throats out.

@4221110

This!

I'm gone! This is getting ridiculous now.
Will be deleting my gallery today, there are way too many advertisements site wide. But really two large ads right beside my gallery image....

Please don't delete your MP items just yet though-- There are some that I still want to get.

Well thanks, IceEmpress :)

I must admit I am starting to look at the prospect of removing all connections to this store/Community(?) site, the over commodification of the community is just going to far these days. And really having to explain why an artist would like to have their art displayed bigger than a postage stamp just demonstrates the growing disconnect.

The images I uploaded to these galleries were never about giving renderosity a click through market. It shows blatant disrespect to the community to make changes in this fashion and take advantage of their member base. I mean try holding your breath until you land on a page without at least one Ad here.

Grr there is no delete all images in the gallery, everytime I delete an image I'm left staring at two large ads that practically fill the screen. Then when it reloads the image is still there, I need to refresh the page to see the image removed. Now let's see that is 4 advert impressions per image deletion, I have 120 images to delete. Wow by the time I have deleted my gallery that adds up to over 500 advertisement impression... Now the changes are really starting to make sense...

Edit: wait I just realised because I wanted to save the image before I delete it. I need to go into the image to save thats 2 more advert impressions per image then back to the main gallery to delete it 2 more. That adds to another 500 advert impressions.

So basically it adds up to well over 1000 advert impression for me to delete my gallery here....

Maybe we should all go into advertising....... We could make tons of money. Then we could buy Renderosity from Bondware, FIRE all their "programmers" and maybe save this site from going down the toilet completely.... :-P

Yeah, noticed the delete my Gallery went away, maybe a good thing I would be tempted to do that but with 1,500 images in my Gallery it would take forever to delete them one at a time even if Delete Image worked.

These changes showed me one thing I guess, my 2 Ad Blockers work real well I don't get any of the Ads many are complaining about and Ghostery is working overtime knocking out all the Social Media tracking and analytics, Love this Opera Browser and it's plugins, screw Google Chrome.

I do not delete my gallery, but I have made a protest render, if you want have a look and write a comment. This protest render is the last I have uploaded here if Renderosity do not make a u-turn.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/?uid=313712

Gallery gone, Tens of thousands of views, Thousands of Favourites, Thousands of comments, Hundreds of images, over 11 years.
Ruined by the greed and lack of consideration of Renderosity.

Tomorrow I will be removing all of my Freebies, So get them while you can....

I, too, fail to see the need for a new consensus. You had one: the old gallery size. Upon what "consensus" was that changed? If it was reduced without the consensus of the community, why is one needed in order to restore it?

Why isn't this just a matter of changing a site configuration setting somewhere? Is there a technical limitation on the image dimensions (not file size)? As a web developer, I don't understand why there would be. The image dimensions matter not one whit for what it takes to store the images on the back-end (except indirectly), but you had a file size limit before. Why can't you use the old file size limit with the old image size limit?

I agree that the new image sizes are too small and generally too restrictive as to proportions. The 1000-character restriction is also too small. I think I usually fit within 1000 but have exceeded it a number of times. The important thing is when I exceed it I'm providing information that compliments the image. As an example my most recent upload https://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/the-cat-who-walked-by-herself/2617646/ has a 1950-character description. It is also 1200x1600 exceeding the new, too-restrictive limits. At a minimum go back to the old rules.

What I don't see on the upload page is a file size limit. Where is that stated?

old gallery, old image size or better double image size and multiply the file size with four and everything is good :) but if you just undo your image size restrictions I will be back.

forgot to say, go back to the old automatic thumbnail and...in sense of the word "thumbnail" use a standard size for thumbnails so the gallery overview is more structured

I want to see a statement of a person that is responsible for all of this. Maybe he/she/it can explain / try to explain the idea behind all this.

I too am shocked by the new restrictions here on Renderosity. Most of my images fall into the 1600x900 size range and as of now most of them would not be accepted by this site. I do not intend to render smaller images.
What is especially confusing is that the 4000x4000 512MB limitation has existed for over 10 years. Storage technology has much improved since then, this site should have a hundred times the capacity it did when the old rules were established.

I would also agree with others in that we all seem to be looking for reasons to stay with Renderosity. And we've just lost a couple good ones this week. But there is still time to change all that if Renderosity just fixes some of these mistakes.

Typically I have visited this site at least 5 times a day since I became a member 3+ years ago. Since the launch of this new site layout, I have stopped visiting the site for the most part, I am checking back every few days to see if things are being fixed, not just talked about. So far I am very pleased to see pages have returned to some areas, unfortunately not all, so thanks for partially addressing that little issue. However, the image size restriction is by far the single largest problem that I have and there seems to be nothing but talk, no indication of action or even the intention of action. Like many others, I am very disappointed that the community was not consulted about such a major change in our ability to upload gallery images.

Shame, I wave my finger at everyone involved in this catastrophic blunder!

Others have posted the stats for the sites I use, which are all much more generous (and logical) than the new restrictions here. But, one must ask why this thread was even needed? If those in charge had done their homework prior to the "upgrade", and vetted the issue properly, it's doubtful this would have been an issue at all. Clearly no one even thought about what happens to landscape format images with the new restrictions. It does make one wonder if management here is working in some sort of information vacuum. Don't they ever visit the competition to see what they are doing?

Recommended 4000 x 4000 pixels with at least 1 MB filesize.

I recommend 3840 x 2160 or 4096 x 2160 max resolution with a max 1 mb filesize. Get with the program, folks.

As I posted in another thread, Hope has responded several times to concerns by one of the vendors, but continues to ignore the rest of us. The powers-that-be at Renderosity continue to make it abundantly clear that they couldn't care less about the rest of us. They prove it over and over again. But you know what? There are lots of other options out there. Since Renderosity seems to have the attitude of "Like it or leave it" it's time to do the latter - since that seems to be what they want for some unfathomable reason.

FWIW, I one of the site admins did respond directly to me in another thread. It wasn't anything substantive regarding the changes, per se, but it was a direct acknowledgement of something I said.

I'm neither a vendor nor a Prime subscriber. I do spend plenty of money here, but I have no way of know if that had any influence. (In context, it seems unlikely to me my spending habits were checked.)

I'm pretty sure things like our spending habits in the RMP weren't even an afterthought. If they can't be bothered to have a look at the other major CG Art websites' gallery image sizes, I'm pretty sure yours or my spending habits were of little importance. That becomes more obvious every day. Maybe it will when the income from the MP takes a dive. But I doubt it.

Razor, would you at least move your products to Daz if you decide to leave Rendo?

Can you or anyone on staff at least answer the question, Will there or won't there be any change forthcoming on Upload Limits, that alone is the determining Factor on whether I and many many others will stay at Renderosity, we deserve an answer and all we get is silence.

Len, currently at this time I'm unsure. I am looking into it now. :)

@4222081 Thank you Kim for replying