Why oh Why?

[John Matthews]

Sometimes I despair!

Below same image uploaded once, 1st image posted as full image and down sized, 2nd image posted as thumbnail and upsized. Previously both would have the same resolution and now ....

Previously the resolution of a thumbnail was sufficient as posted or with a small amount of expansion so that it could be incorporated into a post to be meaningful without the need to enlarge to full size. Most images were sufficient just as thumbnails to understand the point being illustrated. To achieve the same we now have to load full size images and adjust both the image and the text.

John

 

[musicguy]

Previously both would have the same resolution and now ....

I had always thought they had a different resolution.


Rob

 

[John Matthews]

Rob

I cannot say whether both methods were capable of achieving exactly the same resolution, I suspect they were, but possibly not.

I have always posted thumbnails and expanded them if necessary and there has never been a problem. For those who always post full size images and produce huge posts, that some of us fiind frustrating to scroll through, or do not attempt to incorporate images within the text, and simply allow the default of a list of thumbnails at the end post, the change has no impact, other than the thumbnails now show less detail. However, if you incorporate images with the flow of the text, so that they are placed at the relevant point in the text, it makes that task more difficult. It is far easier to produced a post pleasing to the eye, if you insert thumbnails at the appropriate point in the text, complete the post and then, if necessary make small changes to the size of the images, where necessary for the purpose of clarity and presentation. I have just had to re-do my last post using full size images and it is more time-consuming and difficult to achieve a pleasing result.

John

 

[musicguy]

I do dislike when full screen photos are posted (especially multiple large photos) but when I do want
to show a larger photo I always put the full photo in and then
make it smaller rather than use the thumbnail and make it bigger.
The thumbnail is always less clear when enlarged.

It is true that thumbnails load much faster in any size
vs a full-size photo so I mostly use thumbnails.
The viewer can always click to see the full size photo.



Rob

 

[Bill Stuntz]

John, as the one who worked with Tom implementing the photo handling, I think you are mis-interpreting the process, or I'm misinterpreting your process. Since we fixed the original 800x600 max upload resolution problem before XenForo, the process has always been: user uploads a full size image, the system creates thumbnail & inserts it into the post, clicking thumbnail displays full size image linked to thumbnail. There is no need for the user to pre-process the image to create the thumbnail. The system does it automatically. And I'm unsure exactly how you generated that lower resolution image. Can you describe what you're doing in more detail? The image on the left is 929x590=548110 pixels - nice & clear. The one on the right is 250x159=39750px and contains only about 7% the visual information in the same size "frame" which explains the blurriness.

We designed the system to eliminate the need for the user to pre-process images before uploading. The intent is to allow the user to upload whatever photo they have and allow the system to handle appropriate display/storage sizes.

IMHO, you are doing MUCH more work than is necessary to fine-tune your posts. If you want a thumbnail to display inside your text, simply position the cursor where you want it & tell the system to insert the thumbnail THERE. You don't need to create the thumbnail yourself. And I 500% agree that inserting full-size images in posts is a PITA except in VERY rare instances. I've been bitching about that forever.

 

[John Matthews]

Bill - I can assure you that someone has changed the ability to enlarge the thumbnails in the last few days - I can only assume that the resolution of image incorporated when you click to insert thumbnail has been reduced. I have not changed my way of posting. the software has been changed.

John

 

[Bill Stuntz]

I have no way of knowing since I'm not an admin any more. I don't know any more than you do. Maybe it's a bug that's been introduced in the process of preparing to upgrade to the new XF & new hardware? The thumbnail size is configurable in the software. Maybe it's been changed? But AFAIK, that SHOULD just result in visibly smaller thumbnails in the post, not less visual information in the same-visual-size thumbnail. For a long time, thumbnails were 256x256 - which was reasonable when typical display size was 1024x768. Now that it tends to be 1920x1080, larger thumbnails are reasonable. I think that was increased after I left as an admin, but the thumbnails also displayed bigger in relation to the text size in posts. I'm going to go play around some & see if I can figure anything out. But keep in mind that I'm not an admin anymore, so I can't see/do any more than you can. And my editing capability will time out, just like yours does.

 

[Bill Stuntz]

I used a .jpg screen save of an on-screen text file by cropping the image to a known size. I've never done it this way before, so I don't know how it "used to work."

Testing

This image is 1000x1000 Default thumbnail: Resized thumbnail to 100x100 Resized thumbnail to 500x500: Resized thumbnail to 1000x1000

mb.nawcc.org

Conclusion: Don't use the resize function in the editor if you need to enlarge the thumbnail. Reducing the size of the thumbnail is OK. If you NEED a different sized "thumbnail" you'll need to create it and upload/insert it as a full-size image. But keep in mind that if you do it that way the "pseudo-thumbnail" can't be displayed as a full-size image that contains more visual information.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

I recently edited some thumbnails in a post to make the height the same. It made the reading image more pleasant. I would never enlarge a thumbnail created by the system since they have a bounding box of 250 x 250px. That value is arbitrary and it could be changed if there were consensus to do so.

When a thumbnail is clicked to enlarge it in the lightbox a bounding box is also used for very large images. If the viewer wants to see the real full size image with scrollbars, that is an option in the lightbox with the slant arrow to open the image in a new browser window.

Even very large images get a bounding box of 1600 x 1600px. If the file size is larger than 20mBytes the image is rejected as too large.

The next version of XenForo has made some improvements to image handling and sharing that will become available after the current upgrade is completed.

 

[John Matthews]

Tom - the software has been changed/upgraded. Today I posted a new thread on the wristwatch forum using the same method I have used to display photographs literally 100s of times by inserting thumbnails and enlarging them. The enlarged images were of significantly lower resolution than previously.

John

 

[Tom McIntyre]

I do not believe we made any changes. I know that I did not.

If you are creating thumbnails on your workstation something may have changed there.

What image editor do you use to change the size of your images to create thumbnails? What dimenstions are the thumbnails?

One can make something that looks like a thumbnail by using the html to scale the image when displaying it. Or one may edit the image to be smaller and display it at full resolution. In the first instance the image can be freely enlarged to its original dimensions without losing information. In the second instance the information was already discarded when the edit was made.

Our software keeps both the original image and the thumbnail image when a file is uploaded. If the original image is smaller than our thumbnail size only the "full" image is saved.

 

[Dick C]

Is there a log of changes created when someone alters the software?

 

[bruce linde]

wait wait wait.... i have now re-read this thread three times and still don't understand what's going on.

the way to get the best resolution photos in a messsage board post is to simply click the 'attach files' button and then upload images that are clear, in focus, and (ideally) 1600-2000 pixels wide. the system will auto-resize as necessary. then, you can insert THUMBNAIL or FULL IMAGE... but the system handles inserting images into posts automatically, with no need for assistance.

there should be no 'ist image posted as full image and down sized' or '2nd image posted as thumbnail and upsized'. when attaching files, make sure your source files are high-enough resolution... period. finito. done. then, you are either choosing to insert a thumbnail or full sized image inline in a post... but that has nothing to do with downsizing or upsizing images.

in the old days, thumbnails were required because of slower internet speeds. larger files took longer to load... now, not so much. back in the day, one had to create thumbnail versions of high-rez photos. but not so much these days, and certainly not on the message board.

while some people on the message board hate when others insert FULL IMAGEs rather than THUMBNAILS that's a different issue. people in the field are working on various methods to allow upscaling of images without pixlation (including articifical intelligence) but no one should EVER upsize images and expect they will retain resolution.

Today I posted a new thread on the wristwatch forum using the same method I have used to display photographs literally 100s of times by inserting thumbnails and enlarging them. The enlarged images were of significantly lower resolution than previously.

in response to this i would say: no no no no. wrong process. upload highest possible rez photoos (but no point in having files more than 2-3 megabytes in size) and then 'insert thumbnails' inline in your posts... when you or any other MB user clicks on the thumbnails they will see the high-rez versions... but that is NOT 'upsizing'. it's the user telling the system to show the larger/largest image.

 

[John Matthews]

Bruce - not the wrong process, I obviously did not make the process I use clear

I transfer raw images from my camera to Lightroom (each image is 30-40MB). After processing I have a preset to convert them to jpgs - they are all converted by the same process (100-200KB). I attach them to the post using the button Attach Files. I then insert them into the post using insert Thumbnail. What I observed was that when I did this at the time I started the thread, I enlarged the thumbnail (a relatively small amount to improve the presentation) the resolution did not appear to me as I had observed previously. There is no problem with the resolution of the Full Image obtained by clicking on the thumbnail.

John

 

[bruce linde]

got it.... when i create jpgs 1600-2000 pixels wide (at 72 dpi), files sizes can run from 100-something k to 700 or 800. i use (an older version of) photoshop and just set the 'image processor' max sizes to 2000 px... works a treat.



but i still don't understand what you mean by "I enlarged the thumbnail (a relatively small amount to improve the presentation) the resolution did not appear to me as I had observed previously". how?

once i upload i don't do anything else. also, don't forget that browsers can be annoying sticky about some cache files and get confused (so glad i retired from building websites! )

 

[John Matthews]

Bruce - this is the type of adjustment I do.

If I insert these two photographs as thumbnails - this is what I get



I would then adjust the sizes - to improve (in my eyes) the presentation like so



The impression I have is that the degree to which I can make this type of adjustment, without significant loss in resolution, has changed.

I have always realised that if I insert as full images and then down size the image, the resolution will be better, i.e. as below

All of the above inserted images have been generated from the same uploaded images, which will be displayed by clicking on the inserts.

John

 

[bruce linde]

third sentence... adjust how? specifically?

 

[John Matthews]

Insert the thumbnail and adjust the size by selecting the image and draging the corners to adjust the height to the adjacent image.

John

 

[Bill Stuntz]

John, I can't say whether it's any different now than it's ever been because I'd never tried to do it previous to my experiments over in the practice forum - which showed exactly the results I was expecting. https://mb.nawcc.org/threads/testing.192911/

Your post#16 has clarified my understanding of your problem. I can finally see why you're doing that. The source of your problem is that the 2 photos are different aspect ratios. The system creates thumbnails preserve the aspect ratio and are 250px in the largest direction. So the tall/narrow thumbnail is 250px tall, and the sorta-square one is 250px wide. When they're placed beside each other the difference in height is VERY obvious. AFAIK, the system can't be configured to make all the thumbnails 250px tall, even though that might make it more aesthetically pleasing when thumbnails are displayed side-by-side. If the aspect ratios aren't too different, the loss of resolution isn't as noticable when you stretch one to make it the same height.

 

[bruce linde]

Insert the thumbnail and adjust the size by selecting the image and draging the corners to adjust the height to the adjacent image.
View attachment 742834
John

the re-size functionality was originally added to xenforo's core functionality to allow people to DOWN-size images... not up-size.

ANY time you (generic) increase the size of a photo... even a shmidge... you are adverseley affecting resolution. i know you said it used to work, but i think it probably just worked ok. something in the code base might have changed... xenforo might be using some different image processing code in the deep down plumbing (added in a recent update), your browser could be doing something wonky, doesn't matter. if you want your thumbnails to match, just make sure the big images are the same size and all will be well.

while it sometimes irritates my OCD when my images (and especially the thumbnail versions) are not all the same size, i let it go... and standardize my photos whenever possibloe at 1600 px wide (at 72 dpi)...

if thumbnail size matters to you, my approach would be to standarize your photos to 1600 px wide by 1200 px tall (or similar) and then they (and their thumbnail versions) would all be the same size. of course, you still have the problem of mixing landscape and portrait images, and square ones like in your most recent example.

i can't alway standardize my photos, but i do... after inserting thumbnails into posts... manually insert a space between each one to give them a ittle breathing room... the burr under my saddlle is thumbnailis mashed into one another.

 

[Tom McIntyre]

If all you want is aspect ratio and size, you should be cropping images to the bounding box. I did it that way for a while about 8 years ago but most people did not lke it.

It is not impossible to put a full image editor in the attachment processing, but it is a lot of work and relatively few users would want to put in the effort. Those that do want perfection can come much closer by editing before posting with the target dimensions in mind.

 

[Bill Stuntz]

the re-size functionality was originally added to xenforo's core functionality to allow people to DOWN-size images

That calls attention to the fact that there's more than one way to skin a cat. The problem isn't necessarily that one of them is too short. If you have a thumbnail that's too tall for an adjacent one, shrink the tall one rather than stretching the short one to maintain the image quality.

 

[John Matthews]

While I appreciate all of the explanations that have been patiently provided, please be aware that I did the graphics option as part of my IT Masters, albeit 30+ years ago, so I understand all the implications of resizing thumbnails and the impacts on resolution. I can easily improve the resolution of what I display in a post. That was never my point. I follow a strict process to transform the raw images that I take, to the jpg images that I post. I do it through a series of saved presets in Lightroom.

but i think it probably just worked ok. something in the code base might have changed... xenforo might be using some different image processing code in the deep down plumbing (added in a recent update)

My point was that I perceived that there was a change in the behaviour of the software and a process I have always followed was apparently impacted. Whether my perception was correct and whether there had been a change or not, is to me not a game changer. The problem is that there are changes made to the software and the infrastructure and there is no place (to my knowledge) where the details and time, of those changes are recorded together with the reasons and 'expected' implications. It was not possible to check whether a change has been made and if so why.

I have no doubt that it will be argued that there are not the resources to do this; possibly that it is an unnecessary overhead. My professional opinion is that it is a highly important step in change control because it maintains a transparent change record that is a necessary element in the professional maintenance of any system.

John

 

[bruce linde]

The problem is that there are changes made to the software and the infrastructure and there is no place (to my knowledge) where the details and time, of those changes are recorded together with the reasons and 'expected' implications. It was not possible to check whether a change has been made and if so why. I have no doubt that it will be argued that there are not the resources to do this; possibly that it is an unnecessary overhead. My professional opinion is that it is a highly important step in change control because it maintains a transparent change record that is a necessary element in the professional maintenance of any system.

in an ideal world, sure... but even on the largest and most important sites my partner and i built before i retired last year (and we built some big ones) we used version control to record changes only for ourselves... to 1) make sure our code bases were in sync and 2) be able to reverse changes in case of issues... no one got transparency, particularly end-users.

these days, platforms like xenforo, php, and even operating systems use countless supporting software libraries that get updated all the time... automatically. there is no need for the client or end user to know anything other than "it's working"... even sites we built for (for example) individual realtors used dozens of supporting libraries, each with thousands of lines of code. it's not unusual for a complete backup of a website to include 10,000+ files.

if upsizing thumbnails without compromising resolution actually worked for you for a while, you got lucky. what changed? could've been the framework for your browser or your OS. could have been xenforo or one of their libraries. could have been a ghost in the machine, or Tom McIntyre trying out some new and completely unrelated to images xenforo thing.

in this case, everything is working as it should be... and upsizing images is still something that shouldn't be done.

as for "transparent change record that is a necessary element in the professional maintenance of any system"... the nawcc sites are just one benefit of membership in (or associating with) a volunteer-driven non-profit organization like the nawcc. this isn't a b of a, american express or a government site. the organization contracts with a third party web company to maintain the sites, but no one can afford the level of professionalism you're talking about... except amazon and other enterprise-level companies with lots of dedicated engineers.

methinks you are expecting a bit much for your $90/year?

 

[John Matthews]

Bruce - we have different backgrounds and perspectives.

I do think a transparent change control system is an essential part of any system. I am not advocating that a change log should be available to end users. I should have made that clear. The maintenance of a change log of every change to any system with end users is essential. The transparency is that it can be inspected by those maintaining the system so that when an end user asks for an explanation of a change of behaviour, that log can be used to assist in the investigation and establish the cause. The reason for ...

we used version control to record changes only for ourselves... to 1) make sure our code bases were in sync and 2) be able to reverse changes in case of issues.

and yes you may not have given access to end users, but if there was a problem it would (did) importantly, enable you to fix the problem efficiently and provide an explanation to give confidence and reassurance to your users.

The NAWCC has an IT provision that is multifaceted with elements that are controlled and maintained by a range of staff from volunteers, employees and consultants. In such an environment a transparent change log of all elements is an essential resource for those individuals and those with overall responsibility for the provision, to do precisely what I have just explained.

John

 

[bruce linde]

I am not advocating that a change log should be available to end users.

and yet you continue to do just that:

so that when an end user asks for an explanation of a change of behaviour,

enable you to fix the problem efficiently and provide an explanation to give confidence and reassurance to your users.

the only thing end users get told when broken things are fixed is "it's fixed... please let us know it's working for you again". maybe the people we worked for got explanations, but most of our users were too busy to care about the geeky/tech side.

if one of those wanted to know what happened they might get a general answer, but certainly never specifics such as "so and so broke it" or "the shbuzillie plugin update had an issue"... none of their business, and no need to throw oneself or a team member under the bus.

you know what the nawcc is and isn't and keep wanting it to be what it isn't. except for a few less than trivial (and very frustrating for all) glitches over the last (when i was an admin) five years things continue to run pretty smoothly... especially considering limited and volunteer resources.

if you were arguing your point over a more serious issue, i might give it more sway... but you're making a deal about transparency when the real/original issue (up-sized thumbnails looking as actually expected) was self-induced.

best practices says: images should not be up-sized. period. that's what i would tell my end-users.

 

[Bila]

Edit

 

[Bila]

Interesting to see some of your responses

there is no need for the client or end user to know anything other than "it's working".

Not the case at all with some businesses.

the organization contracts with a third party web company to maintain the sites, but no one can afford the level of professionalism you're talking about

Even having a third party Contractor for maintenance the Organization must ensure Professionalism from them at all times, thus someone must have oversight.

methinks you are expecting a bit much for your $90/year?

Great Statement, effectively saying why are you complaining as you pay stuff all, instead of wanting to address what needs to be addressed.

but most of our users were too busy to care about the geeky/tech side.

Again not the case in all scenarios.

if one of those wanted to know what happened they might get a general answer, but certainly never specifics such as "so and so broke it" or "the shbuzillie plugin update had an issue"... none of their business, and no need to throw oneself or a team member under the bus.

Reeks of not taking responsibility for your Workmanship.

you know what the nawcc is and isn't and keep wanting it to be what it isn't.

This I do not understand, wanting the organization to improve its ability to deliver services, is apparently to you "wanting it to be what it isn't"

 

[bruce linde]

Interesting to see some of your responses
Not the case at all with some businesses.

true... as i said, fortune 500 companies are subject to much stricter guidelines.

Even having a third party Contractor for maintenance the Organization must ensure Professionalism from them at all times, thus someone must have oversight.

true... but has nothing to do with this thread, which was about:

1. someone using a process pretty much guaranteed to adversely affect image resolution
2. that person reporting that they used to be to get away with it, but that the software was now working correctly.
3. that person saying SOMETHING must have changed... implying that somehow what did change broke something, when it actually fixed a problem

Reeks of not taking responsibility for your Workmanship.

sure... insult my professionalism while simultaneously demonstrating a lack of awareness of how web development actually works. i built 400+ website over 24 years working with top professional services companies... maybe you could share your web resume?

fyi, my reputation was for over-the-top immediate gratification concierge customer service. the clients and end users loved me. imagine that.

This I do not understand, wanting the organization to improve its ability to deliver services, is apparently to you "wanting it to be what it isn't"

i agree... you do not understand. nothing was actually broken, except for the OP's process.

yes, he reported a change in his user experience with the message board... but i would call what he experienced and reported the result of a background software fix implemented somewhere deep in the underlying plumbing by who knows who, probably auto-magically... and it doesn't matter because... wait for it... nothing was broken, except for the OP's process, which he can (and should) fix at his end.

if you truly want the organization "to improve its ability to deliver services", you should start a new thread about a specific service you think needs better delivery, and suggest a way delivery could be improved.... but this isn't the thread you are seeking, and has nothing to do with your latest comments.

 

[Bila]

10 years in my own tech business (only closed to ill health) , including software development, server builds, server system migrations, systems maintenance and Data Recovery services.

true... but has nothing to do with this thread, which was about:

You brought the 3rd party Contractor up in this thread., so it is relevant.

 

[Dick C]

Happy New Year!

 

[John Matthews]

It would appear that there is been a further change to the software.

I have just posted here and attached 3 photographs and a figure. I posted the figure as a thumbnail and the photographs as full images. When I posted, the figure was duplicated at the end of the post, the photographs were not. I edited and deleted the duplicate on saving it had not been removed. Edit a second time deleted the attached file, saved. Edit a third time and attached the file again. Posted as a thumbnail - again duplicated. Edit a fourth time deleted the thumbnail and replaced by full image. Saved, no duplicate.

John

EDIT - is it possible that the [Gross] as part of the filename is impacting the parsing of the insert function?