I'm sure this has been talked about before - so my apologies for redundant efforts.

With almost every image I post to the galleries I am forced to reduce and compress to fit the 512k file size limit - substantially lowering image quality 

I understand that storage and bandwith are still an issue, even though both have significantly decreased in cost of the years.

So how about this; there currently is an option to increase the number of uploaded files to three per day for a 5.00 monthly fee. Provide an option that for the same 5.00 fee, instead of uploading 3 512k files, upload 2 720k files, or 1 1024k file - or some variaiton which fits the cost profile for your server and services.

For those of us who love the HD format and higher quality images, this would be a fantastic addition to the gallery.

I also realize that with higher quality images there may be an increased risk of copyright violators, but that should be the decision of the artist to publish at the higher resolutions and take those risks.

Thanks all.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll pass it to the appropriate staff.

Thanks!

~Jani

Hi,

I would have no objections to 1MB as a new Gallery limit, if feasible regarding storage space, higher traffic and overall increased costs. As suggested above, R'osity then could consider to provide a "premium gallery service" for uploading images up to 1MB.

Personally, I prefer browsing Gallery images under 500kB filesize and images that are less than 3000 pixels wide on screen. (Unless images would be intended for printing purposes). The Gallery thumbnails already display the filesize by mouse-over, which I really appreciate!

Besides "image filesize":
Is there no such check for images in Signatures and in Gallery Comments, compared to the restrictions for Avatars, Banners and Forum attachments?  

I remember (though only few):

• Forum post Signatures with embedded images over 250kB (one even beyond 1MB, iirc). Or Signatures with external server links to show swf/image files, some quite large in filesize. Mostly being animated stuff, which might explain such filesizes.
• Forum post threads that contained embedded images beyond 2MB! (Does the according 200kB limit only affect attachments?)
• Some Gallery Comments with embedded images of several hundred kB. (That visual comment certainly being a nice intention, but sometimes being larger than the original Gallery image above it, g).

Sorry, I have no such examples by hand and searching the forums/galleries with my current slow "rural pre-DSL connection" is no fun. An Admin with according database tools could certainly find such examples more easily.

Hubert

To be honest, I really don't think the gallery file size limits will be changed, and if they are, it wouldn't be to 1 mb for sure. {This is my own opinion..so don't quote me}

The reason behind the file size limits {to my knowledge} is to keep loading times down in the galleries. With over 600 images being posted daily, those with slower connections would have a harder time of seeing the galleries, and we want everyone to be able to enjoy the images posted.

The file size is limited to 512 kb and 4000 x 4000 size. That is plenty large enough to show great detail while still keeping the loading times down.

We dont usually police the forum signatures, but if you see something that is huge, or something that might not be appropriate please feel free to let us know.

As for images in the galleries comments section..we do check those if we come across them or are reported but usually dont take action unless the images are large, contain media elements, or are otherwise unnecessary or offensive.