Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2014, 10:49:51 am
Search Calendar Login Register

Recent Additions to Forum's Shop


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Announcements and Help  |  Discussion Board and FORVM Website Help (Moderators: Joe Sermarini, Sorin)  |  Topic: Image size limits? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2  All Go Down Print
Author Topic: Image size limits?  (Read 3718 times)
Enodia
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1645


~ For My Star ~


« on: May 15, 2011, 07:50:13 pm »

this is a subject i've been wanted to post for some time...
is there a way to have the board software automatically limit the size of posted images?

i am on a dialup modem. yes, i know that is my problem and probably doesn't apply to many others here, but it is what i have and is all i can afford right now.
these really huge photo files have the effect of eliminating me from certain discussions. i cannot browse through Jochens threads on mythology, or the very tempting thread on Greek river gods, and to get into the 'Post a Picture of You' thread usually takes so long that i time-out and can't get in.
any topic which has lots of images posted (as most do when die matches, fakes, etc, are being discussed) means i cannot be involved, or even view the examples.

now i am sure the reason for posting such monster images is that most people just don't realize that it matters, and so don't give a second thought to editing the files down.
but the main reason i am finally posting this is i have noticed that very very few images really look much better at 1500k than they do at, say 150k, so why waste all the bandwidth and eliminate a percentage of the members (however small that percentage may actually be)? is it really necessary?

so i thought that if the board could automatically resize these mega-files to a manageable level no one would be hurt, and some of us might be able to participate further without the all the frustration.

i hope this makes sense and is not too unreasonable a request, and thank you in advance.

posting from the Stoneage,
~ Peter
Logged

Lloyd Taylor
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2011, 09:31:42 pm »

I agree.  It would be great if it could be done automatically.  I suspect that many posters don't really think about, or even know how to resize the image taken with their super duper 15 megapixel all singing all dancing camera! Even with a broadband connection downloading a thread page with lots of images can be a pain in the derriere at times!
Logged
Joe Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM STAFF
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5765


All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2011, 10:01:45 pm »

There is already a size limit - 800 pixels wide.  I think more to the future and faster speeds, than to the past and slower speeds.  The other side of this that people who don't know how to make their pics smaller will not be able to upload.  I think I would have to hear this is a problem for more people before I would consider a change. 
Logged

Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Enodia
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1645


~ For My Star ~


« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2011, 10:11:23 pm »

There is already a size limit - 800 pixels wide.  I think more to the future and faster speeds, than to the past and slower speeds.  The other side of this that people who don't know how to make their pics smaller will not be able to upload.  I think I would have to hear this is a problem for more people before I would consider a change.

thanks for the quick reply Joe.
if it isn't possible i understand. and if the majority oppose, well then... "the dude abides".

but i'm not sure how unnecessarily large files which add no more than the same image uploaded smaller is "looking to the future". i get that the big wheel keeps on turning, but does it have to role over all of us at the same time?

as far as people not being able to resize for themselves, that is why it would be done for them... IF it can be done at all that is.

~ Peter


Logged

Steve E
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 629


My favorite Forvm purchase, so far!


« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2011, 11:13:34 pm »

When I started posting last year, I started a thread asking for help nailing down an alexander chalkos and uploaded 3 pic. from my 6mp point and shoot camera. I wasn't getting any help at first so I tried reposting in different catagories. Eventually I got a reply from Slokind pointing out that my images were too large and of the long wait many might have to view the thread. I was feeling ignored and would have given up if it wasn't for Pat's insight and kind suggestions.

At that time I didn't know how to resize images, and I guess I thought it was automatically done by the website. With a little help, I figured out how to resize and combine obv. and rev. side by side in the same frame. After I made the changes and reposted, I immediately started receiving replies and got the neccesary help to ID my coin.

If It wasn't too much trouble, I also think that some kind of automatic filter that resized images to an acceptable size would be great!

I'm sure I'm not the only computer green horn out there Roll Eyes

Best Regards,
Steve
Logged

Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3886



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2011, 01:39:20 am »


i am on a dialup modem.
~ Peter

I'm almost curious as to where in the world one can still get dial-up service. I can't think of anywhere I've been in 5 years, even throughout Africa, where either broadband or 3G weren't the only options. I didn't know that companies still had a number you could call.

However there is a temporary solution. In your browser settings you could turn-off load-images. That should fix it for reading. In Google Chrome it is in "Options", "Under the Hood" (should be "Bonnet" of course), "Content Settings", "Do not load any images". There is a similar setting in IE and other browsers.

The other solution is to switch from slow Internet Explorer to a fast browser such as Chrome, which loads many web-pages in a fraction of the time than IE.

That said, though tough, my sense is that it's necessary to move on to a faster internet service. Once VCoins changed its listing options to "show 50, 100 or 200 coins per page" about 2 years ago, then they switched off the option of selling to dial-up customers. Others have followed. Nowadays I get frustrated by web-pages that list "only" 20 coins at a time. Forum's sales pages currently list 18 at a time. I will be pleased when it moves to 50 or more. I should not expect websites to cater for dial-ups anymore.
Logged

Enodia
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1645


~ For My Star ~


« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2011, 01:51:58 am »

i live in Salem, the state capital of Oregon. it isn't really that remote a concept.
i can load 50 at a time at VCoins, and 100 at a time at CNG (it takes a minute or so, but i can be that patient at least). and of course i buy many of my coins from VCoins, as well as various items from Amazon, Powell's Books, etc. dialup does not restrict me in that regard at all
the only places i have a real difficulty are sites which do not restrict image size and allow massive files to be uploaded. and i just don't understand why they need to be so big. does a lousy out-of-focus image look any better when it is ten times larger?

but as long as i can use my dial-up connection (at $12/month) i can continue to enjoy sites such as Forvm. anything faster would cost me 4-5 times as much, and that would mean no more coins. and as much as i like being here, i prefer to collect coins than discuss them.
this way i can do both.
Logged

Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3886



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2011, 02:00:31 am »

i live in Salem, the state capital of Oregon. it isn't really that remote a concept.
i can load 50 at a time at VCoins, and 100 at a time at CNG (it takes a minute or so, but i can be that patient at least). and of course i buy many of my coins from VCoins, as well as various items from Amazon, Powell's Books, etc. dialup does not restrict me in that regard at all
the only places i have a real difficulty are sites which do not restrict image size and allow massive files to be uploaded. and i just don't understand why they need to be so big. does a lousy out-of-focus image look any better when it is ten times larger?

but as long as i can use my dial-up connection (at $12/month) i can continue to enjoy sites such as Forvm. anything faster would cost me 4-5 times as much, and that would mean no more coins. and as much as i like being here, i prefer to collect coins than discuss them.
this way i can do both.


Individual posters can choose to load smaller images and I often do load 250 pixel wide images (1/10th size) but there are occasional times I need to load a larger one to show a fuller picture, and I would not like my numismatic discussion possibilities to be restricted to cater for the rare dial-up user [postscript: I searched for stats; by late 2008, 95% of UK and 93% of US customers were on broadband; I suspect it's 99%+ all round by now]. I guess we could all try and use some self-discipline and load smaller images if we know how, and so long as it makes no difference to the discussion.

I suggest you activate the "turn off images" option at times, and switch to a faster browser (both free options). I doubt any site is going to make changes to make things easier for dial-ups. It's a one-way road towards more images and more speed.....
Logged

mwilson603
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1365


« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2011, 06:00:43 am »

i live in Salem, the state capital of Oregon. it isn't really that remote a concept.............
...................but as long as i can use my dial-up connection (at $12/month) i can continue to enjoy sites such as Forvm. anything faster would cost me 4-5 times as much.......

A quick search for broadband in your area gives a price of $14.95 from AT&T as on the following link, so maybe NOT as expensive as you think. (Admittedly, not as fast as some services offered elsewhere, but SIGNIFICANTLY faster than dial-up for not much more cash!)
http://broadband.theispguide.com/urlfilter/city.salem/serName.c/state.OR/findbroadband.html
Even if that offer isn't exactly right for you, I think that you will find broadband offerings much cheaper than you may have thought previously.  Come on, get yourself into the late 20th century Smiley
regards
Mark
Logged
Joe Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM STAFF
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5765


All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2011, 06:09:58 am »

...A quick search for broadband in your area gives a price of $14.95 from AT&T as on the following link, so maybe NOT as expensive as you think...

I had no idea it had become that inexpensive.  Wow. 
Logged

Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS
*Alex
Procurator Caesaris
Quaestor
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Ne Iupiter quidem omnibus placet.


« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2011, 09:49:27 am »

...A quick search for broadband in your area gives a price of $14.95 from AT&T as on the following link, so maybe NOT as expensive as you think...

I had no idea it had become that inexpensive.  Wow.  

It's certainly not that inexpensive here (Scotland), it costs me £45.00 ($73.00) per month for 50Mb broadband.  Sad

Alex.
Logged

goldenancients
Magistratus Optima Lege
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1084


Danny Jones


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2011, 11:26:36 am »

It's certainly not that inexpensive here (Scotland), it costs me £45.00 ($73.00) per month for 50Mb broadband.  Sad

50Mb!!! Wow! The rest of the world has a long way to go to catch up to the UK in internet speeds. Here in SE Asia, I stepped out of the dial-up era about 2 years ago (about 5 kB)... so I feel your pain Peter. Then I got high speed (advertised at 8Mb, but usually around 1Mb). At that speed, images usually load fine, unless they are extremely large.

The problem with large photos is that even though the discussion board displays them at 800px width, the entire original file  still has to load in the background to fully display. We ought to all resize photos to a reasonable size before posting them. My camera saves JPEG files at 8 megabytes each. It's quicker to spend a minute to downsize than to wait 5 minutes in uploading time. AND it's just polite.
Logged

areich
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9646



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2011, 11:31:06 am »

People who understand that already reduce their images to reasonable sizes, though it will still be hard on a dial-up connection. Only rarely do really high-resolution pictures really look good in original size.
Logged

Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3886



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2011, 12:30:30 pm »


It's certainly not that inexpensive here (Scotland), it costs me £45.00 ($73.00) per month for 50Mb broadband.  Sad

Alex.

Alex

That's incredibly expensive. I'm paying £10 in a large UK city somewhat further south of the Scottish border. Admittedly that's the incremental cost as part of a combi package that includes cable television and unlimited free phone calls in Europe (total for all three comes to £60), but the standalone broadband package I switched from cost £14.99, not exactly tear-inducing. Perhaps you might want to do a best-buy search too!
Logged

mwilson603
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1365


« Reply #14 on: May 16, 2011, 02:11:34 pm »


It's certainly not that inexpensive here (Scotland), it costs me £45.00 ($73.00) per month for 50Mb broadband.  Sad

Alex.

Alex

That's incredibly expensive. I'm paying £10 in a large UK city somewhat further south of the Scottish border. Admittedly that's the incremental cost as part of a combi package that includes cable television and unlimited free phone calls in Europe (total for all three comes to £60), but the standalone broadband package I switched from cost £14.99, not exactly tear-inducing. Perhaps you might want to do a best-buy search too!

On top of Andrew's advice about looking around, I would seriously question if you need anywhere near that speed anyway.  For most web pages you will NOT see a visible difference between 50Mb, and say 20Mb.  To be honest, you wouldn't see much difference between that and an 8Mb line speed.  Unless you are transferring or downloading HUGE files, or potentially streaming live hi-def video, that is simply overkill.
regards
Mark
Logged
*Alex
Procurator Caesaris
Quaestor
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1577


Ne Iupiter quidem omnibus placet.


« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2011, 03:27:14 pm »


It's certainly not that inexpensive here (Scotland), it costs me £45.00 ($73.00) per month for 50Mb broadband.  Sad

Alex.

Alex

That's incredibly expensive. I'm paying £10 in a large UK city somewhat further south of the Scottish border. Admittedly that's the incremental cost as part of a combi package that includes cable television and unlimited free phone calls in Europe (total for all three comes to £60), but the standalone broadband package I switched from cost £14.99, not exactly tear-inducing. Perhaps you might want to do a best-buy search too!

On top of Andrew's advice about looking around, I would seriously question if you need anywhere near that speed anyway.  For most web pages you will NOT see a visible difference between 50Mb, and say 20Mb.  To be honest, you wouldn't see much difference between that and an 8Mb line speed.  Unless you are transferring or downloading HUGE files, or potentially streaming live hi-def video, that is simply overkill.
regards
Mark

Mark, If it was just me I would agree. I don't do much file downloading, almost never stream video and never play games. However, I have been cursed with four children, three teenagers and a twenty something year old so the broadband has to support two lap-tops and three desk-top PCs which all might be on at the same time. And I can assure you they will be playing games, downloading files and streaming video.  Wink

Alex.
Logged

Will Hooton
Comitia Curiata II
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1195


Some study history. Some make it.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2011, 04:15:08 pm »



Mark, If it was just me I would agree. I don't do much file downloading, almost never stream video and never play games. However, I have been cursed with four children, three teenagers and a twenty something year old so the broadband has to support two lap-tops and three desk-top PCs which all might be on at the same time. And I can assure you they will be playing games, downloading files and streaming video.  Wink

Alex.

That must be the famous Fibre Optic connection that I have been after for a while, but I can't get since BT have no fibre optic infrastructure north of Dundee (Im in the alleged 'Oil capital' of Europe, Aberdeen). 100Mbps would allow me to actually be competitive in Call of Duty online games, where you are only as fast as your connection speed.

Btw, forget advertised speeds. You'll never get that. My broadband should be 20Mbps. It averages at about 9.
Logged

FELIX SIT ANNUS NOVUS!
mwilson603
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1365


« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2011, 06:14:58 pm »

100Mbps would allow me to actually be competitive in Call of Duty online games, where you are only as fast as your connection speed.

Sorry to say Will, but it has very little to do with the "connection speed".  Online gaming uses a very small amount of actual bandwidth.  Halo Reach usually peaks at approx 300Kbps, and COD Black-Ops on the PS3 at less than that.  So even a 1Mbps service will suffice quite happily as long as nothing else is using that bandwidth.  What will kill an online game for you is the ping time, i.e. the speed of a packet of data from your machine, to the host server, and back.  Get a ping of less than 50ms and you should be competitive.  Get a high ping and you are likely to be very laggy Smiley.

MBps is MegaBits per second, i.e. how much traffic can pass through in one second.  This is usually shortened to Mb when the ISPs start throwing speeds around, e.g. Up to 8Mb.   

So, Imagine that you were able to max out a 100Mbps line just game playing for say, 4 hours per day, 30 days a month.  As mentioned Mbps is a measure of speed of data transfer, and that can be used to guage how much data you will transfer.  100Mbps maxed out would equate to 12.5MB of data transferred every second. (see http://www.unitconversion.org/data-storage/megabits-to-megabytes-conversion.html)  MB is MegaByte, and is a unit of data storage.  (Above MB is GB, then TB, PB etc.  Each is simply 1000 times bigger than the previous.)So take 12.5MB of data transferred per second, and work that out to a monthly data use as above.  Unless my maths is wrong (12.5x60x60x4x30), that would be 5.4TB of data moved every month just game playing.  Most ISPs would have dropped you, or seriously traffic managed you after a couple of weeks.

I hope that all makes sense as it is now 1.15am and it is starting to make less sense to me Cheesy

regards

Mark

P.S. Sorry that this topic has gone so far off course Sad
Logged
Enodia
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1645


~ For My Star ~


« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2011, 06:44:45 pm »

sorry for returning to the topic at hand, but...

I agree.  It would be great if it could be done automatically.  I suspect that many posters don't really think about, or even know how to resize the image taken with their super duper 15 megapixel all singing all dancing camera! Even with a broadband connection downloading a thread page with lots of images can be a pain in the derriere at times!

Quote from: Steve E
When I started posting last year, I started a thread asking for help nailing down an alexander chalkos and uploaded 3 pic. from my 6mp point and shoot camera. I wasn't getting any help at first so I tried reposting in different catagories. Eventually I got a reply from Slokind pointing out that my images were too large and of the long wait many might have to view the thread. I was feeling ignored and would have given up if it wasn't for Pat's insight and kind suggestions.

At that time I didn't know how to resize images, and I guess I thought it was automatically done by the website. With a little help, I figured out how to resize and combine obv. and rev. side by side in the same frame. After I made the changes and reposted, I immediately started receiving replies and got the neccesary help to ID my coin.

If It wasn't too much trouble, I also think that some kind of automatic filter that resized images to an acceptable size would be great!

Quote from: goldenancients
The problem with large photos is that even though the discussion board displays them at 800px width, the entire original file  still has to load in the background to fully display. We ought to all resize photos to a reasonable size before posting them. My camera saves JPEG files at 8 megabytes each. It's quicker to spend a minute to downsize than to wait 5 minutes in uploading time. AND it's just polite.


Quote from: areich
People who understand that already reduce their images to reasonable sizes, though it will still be hard on a dial-up connection. Only rarely do really high-resolution pictures really look good in original size.


so it seems that some people get it anyway. this isn't about whether i can afford to upgrade or whether i should if i could. it also seems that many are confusing picture dimensions with file size. personally i could care less if the picture is 10 feet wide, as long as i can load it. a perfect example is in this thread...

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=71764.0

note that both images are exactly the same dimension (1024x511), and both look equally good. but the second image is one third the file size of the first one! (and i'm not picking on the op, just using the thread as an example).
so why must that be? why can't the image be automatically reduced to a manageable file size?
all i'm saying is that this would help a good number of members while hurting none.

~ Peter


Logged

slokind
Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7137


Art is an experimental science


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2011, 12:43:19 am »

Some of us are at pains not to post degraded images while considering that there may be a few people running 1980s computers.  One thing I do when I can, when I have two or three images that together will fit the format of this Board is to group them in a single file.  It saves scrolling and enables viewing things together that need to be compared.  There can be little excuse for stringing vertically a lot of images, though each one of them may be within some mechanistically determined size demanded by the worst computers.  If ever a thoughtfully composed 'pane' of comparanda is rejected by some mechanism of an uptight mind, I shall complain most bitterly, and while using decent language, correctly spelled and all, I shall say what I think to the management.
Pat L.
Logged
areich
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9646



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2011, 02:08:17 am »

While I agree that you shouldn't just upload uncompressed pictures that are 90% background, many people just don't get it.
There are so many people who just refuse to learn about 'computers' and you won't ever change that. My pet peeve is when people don't bother to learn the first thing about white balance. No coin looks good in an ugly brown picture.

And on the other hand, where do you draw the line? If 99% of people have no problems with file size, why should they be limited. A not too severe limit at, say 1.5 MB per picture might inconvenience only a few people but would not help you at all.
In the German forum we have strict limits of 85kb per image and it's a pain in the neck. It's enough to identify most coins and probably enough for modern coins but nice large pictures are just not possible. It's like being stuck in the Nineties.
Logged

Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3886



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2011, 02:29:32 am »

In the German forum we have strict limits of 85kb per image and it's a pain in the neck. It's enough to identify most coins and probably enough for modern coins but nice large pictures are just not possible. It's like being stuck in the Nineties.

Not only can I imagine that it's a pain in the neck for experienced users, who have to go through several painstaking cycles of size reductions / quality reductions only to accidentally end up with a 10k blurry image from the 10meg original, but I could imagine that non-experienced users never get to post images. But the German forum is nice friendly and very informative forum, I only participate less often than I might because one can't chase every discussion; it deserves good images. Are you not part of the influence-hierarchy that might push to change it - it's people who run the forum after all?
Logged

mwilson603
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1365


« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2011, 09:45:52 am »

And on the other hand, where do you draw the line? If 99% of people have no problems with file size, why should they be limited. A not too severe limit at, say 1.5 MB per picture might inconvenience only a few people but would not help you at all.
In the German forum we have strict limits of 85kb per image and it's a pain in the neck. It's enough to identify most coins and probably enough for modern coins but nice large pictures are just not possible. It's like being stuck in the Nineties.

Maybe Peter has a valid concern, and maybe an automatic picture resizer may be a solution.  However at some point backwards compatibility has to have a limit.  However, as Andreas says, the vast majority of people don't really have a big problem, so is it really worth developing something for the tiny minority?
regards
Mark
Logged
dougsmit
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2011, 05:38:29 pm »

As the old saying goes, you can't please them all.  I agree that big fuzzy pictures do no good but an increasing number of us are producing sharp images and the larger images up to what fills our monitors are nice to view.  Sometimes the larger images might even show something significant regarding whether a coin is genuine or not. 

On the other hand, I really prefer images that allow the whole thing to be seen without scrolling.  I wonder how small a monitor is still common enough to make us want to cater to it.  There was a day that 640x480 was common but most of us are running around double that now.  I'm at 1280x800 and consider myself old fashioned when it comes to computers.  I do wonder just how much compression I should use to retain good quality without adding too much time.  I also suspect I should remove exif information for the little bit that adds but I like that info kept on images so I can see how others are working and wonder if anyone else uses this tool.  I have recently been posting some new images to my old web pages and am sorry if they drive away people unwilling to go Broadband or wait.  My connection loads my biggest page in under a second and it is getting harder every day to remember the old days of the 14.4 modem.
Logged

Enodia
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1645


~ For My Star ~


« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2011, 07:07:33 pm »

try as i might i just cannot see what monitor size has to to with anything.
as i stated above it is not the dimensions of the picture that i am concerned with, but rather the size of the file. and i believe i presented a fairly good case with the link above (here it is again...)
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=71764.0
... same size, same quality, but one image is 33% of the other as far as file size is concerned (120k vs 360k), and THAT is what is keeping me out the threads i would like to view, not the size of the image.

and it's not like i'm asking everyone to post thumbnails here. i thought a limit of about 250k would be fine. i would still have to wait awhile, but that's my cross to bear, and at least i'd be waiting for something and not just spending 10+ minutes waiting for a 'Timed Out' message. 250-300k isn't going to keep anyone here from posting detailed images of good quality. but when these same images run up to 500k, 800k, or even 1250k(!), what is the point?

oh well, nevermind. i'll just go eat cake.
thanks anyway,
~ Peter
Logged

Pages: [1] 2  All Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Announcements and Help  |  Discussion Board and FORVM Website Help (Moderators: Joe Sermarini, Sorin)  |  Topic: Image size limits? « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 2.617 seconds with 75 queries.