1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Larger size limit for image host

Discussion in 'Comments & Feedback' started by Wile E, Nov 15, 2010.

  1. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,501 (2.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,144
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Well shoot. My bad guys / girl. Umm so yeah...

    Larger file size? Meh... the point of TPU hosting is not for gaming screenshots. It is more for heat of the moment, "Here is where you find x on y in z," or at least that is what I use it for. If you guys need more space, take it elsewhere.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  2. Completely Bonkers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,576 (0.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    517
    Have you tried jpeq2000 format? (JP2)

    Seriously, post a picture or link here 1900x1200 in png, jpeg2000 and jpeq compressed at the max 2MB filesize and let's see who can spot the difference. (I agree regular jpeq at high compression is aweful, but jpeq at 2MB especially jp2 at 2MB is pretty good). Irfanview gives you this, with the plugin.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  3. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,817 (3.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,629
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    You are right, WileE, but if someone needs that kind of detail in a comparison they can crop the image to show the specific difference, no?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  4. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,318 (5.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    That's why I inquired about other lossless compressions. Does jpeg2000 compress more than png by a significant amount, and if so, does tpu.org support it?

    And being able to determine the differences depends on hardware as well as the user. The most consistent way to compare screens is still lossless.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  5. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,501 (2.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,144
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    JPEG2000 is something we cannot use. Why do you think nobody uses it? Royalties, royalties, royalties. You have to buy an add-on just export it in photoshop (older versions). Throw that out.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  6. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,318 (5.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    I thought about that as well, but then you introduce other variables to the issue.

    I honestly don't know the best solution. Increase in the limit is just the best I can think of. I'm open to others.

    I considered the option of using other hosts, but then that slows down browsing for the users.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  7. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    14,396 (3.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,350
    TPU image hosting is there for whatever we want to use it for. wrong again. third time's a charm?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  8. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,501 (2.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,144
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    K third post.

    [​IMG]

    JPF vs PNG. FYI: I made that JPF lossless.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  9. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,318 (5.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    OK, now, can we use jpf, and can it shrink the larger 1080p images down enough to fit into the 2MB limit?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  10. AltecV1

    AltecV1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,286 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    173
    Location:
    Republic of Estonia
    i would rather ask W1zzard why is only .jpeg supported and not any other format?
     
  11. Completely Bonkers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,576 (0.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    517
    irfanview - again - save png WITHOUT alpha channel and higher compression options, PNGOUT plugin. You can save 10-30% filesize
     
    scaminatrix and Wile E say thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  12. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,817 (3.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,629
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    TPU.org supports gif, jpeg and png.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  13. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,318 (5.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    Ahhh, now we are getting some good suggestions.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  14. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    24,148 (5.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,311
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    The minute differences will not make a difference, and won't even be noticeable. I'll give you an example, using Call of Duty:Black Ops since you mentioned it.

    I took a 1080p screenshot of it saved as PNG. The total file size is 3.09MB. I uploaded it to imageshack if you are interested in seeing it, you can view it here: http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2955/callofdutym.png I'm not going to embed it because it is huge and I don't want everyone that visits this page to have to load it.

    Now I then loaded that PNG image into Photoshop and saved it as a JPEG with Maximum image quality the resulting image was 1.1MB:
    [​IMG]

    I loaded the two images up into a piece of software I have that compares two images and it spits out an image that puts a red dot anywhere it detects a difference, the result was:
    [​IMG]

    No that is not a mistake, the software could not find a single difference(so the human eye has even less of a chance).

    Just for shits and giggles, I then save the original image again, this time using the "Very High" setting in Photoshop, which sets the quality to 80%, the resulting image was 520KB:
    [​IMG]

    I ran it through my program again to give you an idea of how it actually works(because the first time didn't really give a sense of what it does):
    [​IMG]

    So it certianly is possible to save large resolution files without a loss of visual quality and keep the file size under 2MB.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
    10 Year Member at TPU More than 25k PPD
  15. Andrea87

    Andrea87 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    53 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    22
    No need for > 2Mb limit. All my images saved off photoshop (photos included) never reach 1.5Mb, even if they are 3000x2000 highly detailed ones. Png are good for quality, but bad for bandwidth usage. As stated before, better use a jpeg compression like 8/10 or 9/10 getting a third of the png size having a quality loss almost invisible to the naked eye. images > 2Mb being posted here from tpu.org would just imho make bandwidth bills go higher for our hosts, no real improvements on a forum. Maybe even less readability for low-speed or low-power users. imagine a thread with 50 images in a row each 3mb. how much would it take? better stay on the small sizes, or at least compress.
     
  16. Completely Bonkers New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,576 (0.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    517
    http://luci.criosweb.ro/riot/?ref=RIOT_DLL

    Download RIOT as standalone... or read how to update the irfanview plugin. It includes a comparator in single (not dual) image preview.

    Fiddling with jpeg chroma and filesize settings will get you a near perfect 2MB lossy.

    Playing with PNG external optimizers will save you 10%-35% on a lossless png.

    It can batch process.
     
    Wile E says thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  17. scaminatrix

    scaminatrix

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,565 (1.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    796
    Location:
    By the Channel Tunnel, Kent, England
    Well, looks like we can lower the limit to about 1.2MB :roll:
    I get about 36Kbp/s (yes, Kbp/s) from my Mobile Broadband dongle, so I like the size of the limit.
    And besides, if TPU ups the limit, chances are it'll get ravaged by people not even interested in TPU. Someone a few months ago was saying if you find a photo on TPU's image hosting, then change the http address slightly you'll find other random uploaded pictures (remeber that day of fun? lol). I tried it and found hi-res pictures of Gummy Bears that had their limbs and heads cut off with a scalpel, then reassembled with body parts from different coloured Gummy Bears.

    I vote noooo.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
  18. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    16,957 (3.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    17,939
    that. server bandwidth is not the big issue, it's dumb/lazy/incompetent people not even trying to make life easier for low-speed/low-power users
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  19. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,932 (2.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,357
    Some threads its expected, but to have it any many threads makes it a pain to surf the site on my phone. But for newb users it can be a large force in driving them away if they browse on low power machines, thinking "the site is slow".
     
    10 Year Member at TPU 10 Million points folded for TPU
  20. temp02 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    493 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    166
    W1zzard is more than right, if you want PNGs with smaller size you can change the compression level on the program you use or even use PNGCrush (example) to automate/optimize the process.
     
    Wile E says thanks.
  21. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,318 (5.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    I don't have photoshop, and most of us can't afford that, so while providing us with a great proof of concept, that method is not really doable for most of us.

    This thread is not even about being lazy or dumb. It's more ignorance. I'm no expert in image compression, so I didn't even know where to start to look to achieve smaller lossless pictures. With how common broadband is, and the option in most browsers to not load pictures for those not on broadband, I honestly thought a higher limit was a good solution.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2010
    10 Year Member at TPU
  22. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    16,957 (3.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    17,939
    i didn't mean to
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  23. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,318 (5.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    Oh, my mistake then. I'll edit that out. :toast:
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  24. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    16,957 (3.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    17,939
    i was meant as an attack against people who don't even try to find a different solution and just come here crying "bigger limit plz halp!" :) which is not you of course because you did start that discussion that seems to have generated quite some useful info
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  25. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    20,834 (6.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,972
    Location:
    IA, USA
    To add to that...

    GIF = best for images with 256 colors or less.
    JPEG = best for images with lots of variations (virtually all digital camera pictures and game screenshots).
    PNG = best for images with large areas of a solid color (like a screenshot of this website).

    You should always be able to get a 1920x1200 picture under the 2 MiB limit with the right format. I've only encountered problems with size when dealing with 5+ megapixel pictures from digital cameras. In which event, I either crop or scale the image down and save as JPG (PNG generally won't work well for something photographed) and then they usually come in under 1 MiB.

    Yes, it's more work to treat images right but it's also easier on everyone else (bandwidth, hosting server, users viewing it, etc.) to do so.


    As such, I think the 2 MiB limit is fine for the time being. Yes, it can be a bit annoying but it is for the better.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)