Duplicate Automatically adjust image file size in combination with width/height

This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
If 5 people rate a thread marked 'lack of interest' then it will automatically be moved back here.
I just added the 5th vote there. :)
 
This has been mentioned multiple times. Lack of interest threads get moved back just like threads with low votes get moved to closed suggestions. I think this is automatic. Maybe @Brogan can explain this better.
 
No, you would simply like the thread in the lack of interest category, then by your standards it would get moved out.
 
If a thread doesn't have a vote then it cannot get to 5 votes by my vote. But it doesnt matter much what we think. Lets see what staff says and then we can know for sure.
 
This is a duplicate of a previous suggestion, and I don't feel there's sufficient interest in either re-suggesting it, or re-opening the previous suggestion.

Aside from that it's not particularly a suggestion we agree with and my comments from before still stand, so whether we re-opened the suggestion or not, we still don't really have any plans to implement it:

Chris D said:
I just want to make something clear, as it isn't clear from @Gladius's posts.

XF will reject images that exceed the max file size, but it will not reject an image that exceeds the maximum width and height. If a maximum width and height is set, the image will be automatically resized. Of course resizing images will reduce the file size too.

The only way to not reject an image which exceeds the maximum file size is for us to guess (or crudely calculate) what to resize the image to. This seems far from ideal, therefore the optimum way of ensuring files do not take up much space.

In the example I just uploaded to this album, the original image (not resized) is over 4MB. The resized image is 261KB.

https://xenforo.com/community/media/albums/test-album.241/

Put simply, if you set a max width and height, you're always going to get a considerably smaller file size images and therefore it is the perfect way of controlling disk space usage.

I'm not sure what you feel is wrong with that concept, but it's a tried and tested approach since XF 1.0 (it works the same for XF attachments).
Click to expand...

I get your earlier point about uploaded files which are not resized potentially being large in file size. But the most elegant solution to that issue is not what is being proposed here, but instead is covered by other suggestions. Ultimately, actually looking at image optimisation (things like pngquant on the server, or services like kraken) is likely the best solution. I believe there are already suggestions for this, but also in the meantime, there are already add-on/s which may help.

So, regardless of whether it's lack of interest, or duplicate, it's actually also a "Not planned" unfortunately.
 
Chris D said:
This is a duplicate of a previous suggestion, and I don't feel there's sufficient interest in either re-suggesting it, or re-opening the previous suggestion.

Aside from that it's not particularly a suggestion we agree with and my comments from before still stand, so whether we re-opened the suggestion or not, we still don't really have any plans to implement it:



I get your earlier point about uploaded files which are not resized potentially being large in file size. But the most elegant solution to that issue is not what is being proposed here, but instead is covered by other suggestions. Ultimately, actually looking at image optimisation (things like pngquant on the server, or services like kraken) is likely the best solution. I believe there are already suggestions for this, but also in the meantime, there are already add-on/s which may help.

So, regardless of whether it's lack of interest, or duplicate, it's actually also a "Not planned" unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I’ve read your explanation/justification loads of times now and I still don’t get it. I’d go so far as to say it’s just wrong.

We don’t care about the dimensions of an image but having to set some arbitrary dimension limit just to force a resize to achieve a smaller file size seems really inelegant and non-ideal as we’d really like to keep the files at their original dimensions if they satisfy the file size requirements.

You argue that “crudely calculating” a rescaling isn’t a good solution but I don’t get why. It seems to by far be the best solution and certainly better than forcing a rescaling when it isn’t needed or wanted.
 
RobParker said:
It seems to by far be the best solution and certainly better than forcing a rescaling when it isn’t needed or wanted.
Click to expand...
I disagree, and we'll likely just have to agree to disagree because otherwise we'll go around in circles. You're right, resizing to force a smaller size is inelegant, but that goes both ways and applies to resizing based on file size too. Hence why I proposed what would be a better solution - optimising and compressing the images is by far the most elegant solution. Until then (if we go down that route), resizing based on dimensions is the preferred and only approach.
 
I accept that I’m not going to convince you but the current approach is arguably worse because it’s so blunt/broad. Everything gets resized, regardless of if it needs to be to satisfy filesize requirements.

Calculating a rescaling if needed has to be a better solution than blindly applying it to everything, even where it’s not wanted/needed.

Compression also certainly isn’t by defaut the best solution. For example facebook’s algorithms are notorious amongst photographers for how badly they wreck photos when compressing them. The better solution would be to give the uploader a choice of whether to rescale or compress but that starts to get even more complicated.
 
Chris D said:
I disagree, and we'll likely just have to agree to disagree because otherwise we'll go around in circles. You're right, resizing to force a smaller size is inelegant, but that goes both ways and applies to resizing based on file size too.
Click to expand...

Well no, not really. Because the whole point here is that we usually WANT smaller file sizes, but not necessarily smaller image dimensions. Not to mention cases where even relatively small resolution images are large in size.

Hence why I proposed what would be a better solution - optimising and compressing the images is by far the most elegant solution. Until then (if we go down that route), resizing based on dimensions is the preferred and only approach.
Click to expand...

Are there any specific suggestions for this and/or are you actually planning anything in this direction? I'm not going to presume to read your mind here but I'm probably not the only one here wondering why this strong opposition to what might not be an ideal solution but could be implemented relatively easily and fast and fix what quite a few of us believe to be a big usability issue vs. complicating it and setting it aside for an undetermined amount of time.

I'd understand if this was just some specific random feature request, but honestly, it would be fixing a pretty big usability issue according to today's user and admin expectations. Users shouldn't need to have to resize or change the image type of their images in order to be able to upload them to the gallery, period. Not in 2018.
 

Similar threads

R
  • Suggestion Suggestion
og image problems!
Replies
7
Views
463
Robert9
R
A
Uploading large photo files
Replies
4
Views
815
Alvin63
A
K
  • Suggestion Suggestion
Add options to control client-side image processing
Replies
0
Views
338
Kirby
K
KensonPlays
  • Suggestion Suggestion
Automatic Content Featuring With Criteria
Replies
2
Views
615
Wildcat Media
Wildcat Media
R
XF 2.2 Search for threads with some values?
Replies
5
Views
290
Robert9
R
Top Bottom