TromboneChat

Currently the information on posting images says:

"Can I post images?
Yes, images can be shown in your posts. If the administrator has allowed attachments, you may be able to upload the image to the board. Otherwise, you must link to an image stored on a publicly accessible web server, e.g. http://www.example.com/my-picture.gif. You cannot link to pictures stored on your own PC (unless it is a publicly accessible server) nor images stored behind authentication mechanisms, e.g. hotmail or yahoo mailboxes, password protected sites, etc. To display the image use the BBCode [img] tag."

Prior to the very recent new board, I was able to upload pictures directly from my computer. Now I can't. So, please explain how an administrator allows attachments, how this is shown, and why this would not be allowed at all times?

Still works. I just took a picture from my desktop (don't ask why I have this picture on my desktop) and dragged it into the message box. Mind you, I didn't use the "quick reply" version. You need to use the real deal.

Yeah that threw me off at first too. If you're using any of the skins except I think Black, there should be a "Full Editor & Preview" button that gives you the ability to attach files.

‪Failed again.

Would you please explain the whole detailed process of attaching a picture.

Why is the picture on your desktop and where is the 'message' area?

Using Windows 10, I want to take copy a picture from my 'This PC', 'Pictures' files storage area. What kind of full reference do I need?

Grah wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:33 pm ‪Another try then:

C:\Users\owner\Pictures\Chase\IMG_0788.JPG

That's just the local path, if you get to the 2nd of the images I posted before, a window will appear and that will be where you put the text you indicated, then press "Open".

Please see alterations I was making to my previous post.

It isn't the most intuitive process, but it's hard to explain over text so I made this video hopefully detailing the steps necessary!

[youtube][/youtube]

Another day, another try :

Well, that was about the tenth image I tried and it was a goer. The previous nine all gave me the message, "Error. File too large". So, what is the maximum file size you can post?

Anyway, it may be a slight change of procedure that is needed. So here goes again:

Yep, it's the Add procedure that is a bit more complicated.

And now I notice the previous image I placed is no longer showing.

Very strange. It is back again.

I'll just try one more:

The missing instruction is to use the "Place in line" procedure.

But I still think there is a problem with the size of files:

The last one was only 61.1KB.

So, now trying a 716KB photo:

Yep, would not post. So the question remains as to the maximum file size one can post?

It was 256kb, which must be the default. I upped it to... more than that. I'll talk with Brian about how big we think the cutoff should be.

Yeah, we'll figure it out and make it something reasonable after a bit of research.

Somewhat related, I had an insane amount of trouble just getting a personal icon uploaded today. Restrictions that I was given for my personal thumbnail today: 200x200 but under 20kb. Yet I see many people here who have nice HQ, multi-sized photos as their thumbnails. Why are my thumbnail options so tightly restricted? Is there a setting somewhere that can be changed, or am I doing something wrong? Any help appreciated, thanks!

Jhereg wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:01 pm Somewhat related, I had an insane amount of trouble just getting a personal icon uploaded today. Restrictions that I was given for my personal thumbnail today: 200x200 but under 20kb. Yet I see many people here who have nice HQ, multi-sized photos as their thumbnails. Why are my thumbnail options so tightly restricted? Is there a setting somewhere that can be changed, or am I doing something wrong? Any help appreciated, thanks!

The limitations are to save bandwidth. What file format were you using? Something like png would probably work better than bmp for file size, for example.

It was definitely a png. I get why the size has to be small, but I'm seeing plenty of icons that are clearly bigger than 200x200, and I was just wondering how that was accomplished. If it's not possible that's ok.

Jhereg wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:44 am It was definitely a png. I get why the size has to be small, but I'm seeing plenty of icons that are clearly bigger than 200x200, and I was just wondering how that was accomplished. If it's not possible that's ok.

Nobody I can see has one over 200x200, who are you referring to?

Well...Neo Bri's is rectangular, and the image quality is high. Grah's is an even larger rectangle. Maybe I'm wrong about the size thing, maybe they've used images that are actually smaller than 200x200 and that's how they were able to upload them. But when I tried to do anything other than a square, or that deviated from the pixel/kb requirements, it would not let me post. I'm just trying to figure out how I can post something of a similar quality to what those two have managed. I tried to use a regular photo kind of like what Grah's using, but could not get it down below 20kb without it looking so grainy it wasn't worth using.

Again, if it's not possible that's fine, I just thought maybe there was a workaround or exception or something. If not, the screaming sun from Rick and Morty is fine! lol.

Strange - I think it's a formatting thing. On my screen all of our avatars are identically sized. And I formatted mine in PhotoShop to exactly 200x200, just to maximize things.

Mine was cropped from a larger image using Microsoft Picture Manager (part of the Office Suite).

Jhereg wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:28 am Well...Neo Bri's is rectangular, and the image quality is high. Grah's is an even larger rectangle. Maybe I'm wrong about the size thing, maybe they've used images that are actually smaller than 200x200 and that's how they were able to upload them. But when I tried to do anything other than a square, or that deviated from the pixel/kb requirements, it would not let me post. I'm just trying to figure out how I can post something of a similar quality to what those two have managed. I tried to use a regular photo kind of like what Grah's using, but could not get it down below 20kb without it looking so grainy it wasn't worth using.

Again, if it's not possible that's fine, I just thought maybe there was a workaround or exception or something. If not, the screaming sun from Rick and Morty is fine! lol.

The software will upscale it some if it is smaller than 200 so that all of the avatars are of a similar size. NeoBri's in particular has a lot of white, which is easily compressed. If you're trying to load something that is a photograph you'll probably have to accept some level of diminished quality, although if you upload something smaller, you might be surprised that it turns out okay on the forum software vs. the display you'd be editing it with.

You do not have to have a square, but both dimensions have to be under 200. You could post a column of 1x200 or 200x1 and you'd be okay to load it. But 200x201 would not work. In the case of my avatar, I had to reduce it to lower than 200px, I think it was around 175 on the larger of the dimensions to fit into the 24kb requirement.

I'm reluctant to increase it more as from what I've been reading, a lot of administrators just disable them entirely because (1) performance relative to the benefit bearing in mind that (2) a huge amount of traffic is on mobile devices which have tiny avatars anyway.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:36 am Mine was cropped from a larger image using Microsoft Picture Manager (part of the Office Suite).

Yeah! That's what I tried to do. And it came out reeeeally blurry. If you look at Grah's profile photo compared to yours, see how much clearer it is? And that it's also larger and rectangular? That's why I thought I was missing something. But if I'm not, that's OK

Matt K wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:44 am The software will upscale it some if it is smaller than 200 so that all of the avatars are of a similar size. NeoBri's in particular has a lot of white, which is easily compressed. If you're trying to load something that is a photograph you'll probably have to accept some level of diminished quality, although if you upload something smaller, you might be surprised that it turns out okay on the forum software vs. the display you'd be editing it with.

You do not have to have a square, but both dimensions have to be under 200. You could post a column of 1x200 or 200x1 and you'd be okay to load it. But 200x201 would not work. In the case of my avatar, I had to reduce it to lower than 200px, I think it was around 175 on the larger of the dimensions to fit into the 24kb requirement.

I'm reluctant to increase it more as from what I've been reading, a lot of administrators just disable them entirely because (1) performance relative to the benefit bearing in mind that (2) a huge amount of traffic is on mobile devices which have tiny avatars anyway.

Understood. Thank you!