Size restriction on attachments

[GPTECHMAN]

I was wondering how everyone felt as far as the size was concerned...do you guys feel that we should be able to post larger images...I dont mean that it should exceed the full size of the screen, but I feel that 640X480 is just a little on the tiny side. A lot of the Hypercyclers have fairly decent cameras, and I hate losing resolution on this restriction....Im planning on getting a nice camera so I can take pics of the rides and such and whats the point if I have to resize the heck out of it and whatnot...if space is a concern, then Ill pitch in with some money for the server, but if its not then why not let us post images, that I dont have to waste so much time on trying to gettting in postable parameters. 70kb is really small an I feel that if other sights like myspace have a 600kb limit and they have over 400,000 users then we should be able to have something like that.

just my two pennies....

[dre_2k2_f4i]

I like the 640x480 file size -- I think it's best because it limits the width, and we don't have to be scrolling horizontally. I would like the kb limit increased to about 140kb so I can upload higher quality images. But to tell you the truth, 70 kb is definitely good enough.

But then again, I have a personal website where I can post all my shizznit at whatever quality I want...

My vote is for us to setup an album program like they have on SoCal SV Riders.

[GPTECHMAN]

yeah but then you have to fish around in everyones album to find stuff that could all go in one thread....not as streamline...
but I think that if we uped it to 200kb that would be cool
I was hoping that the size restriction could go up to whatever the next size is...lol
I dont even know...

[dre_2k2_f4i]

With a photo album we could see thumbnails and add stupid or witty comments.

640x480 is large enough to see you kiss ass! :p

[speedster1219]

dam where is pic of the week when ya need it

:p :p :p :razz: :0 :D :D

[GPTECHMAN]

oh your just jealous cause I get all the action...

youve been drinking too much

[Jae]

600 KB is too large for our site because we do have bandwidth limitations. As we get more traffic and more readership, we will purchase more bandwidth, however I want to make sure we don't run the risk of going over nor pay for more than we need.

I can up the size to 800x600 and 85K for now but I caution that this value may go down if our bandwidth usage goes up.

There are many batch resizing programs available that can make digital images smaller. In reality, digital cameras have higher resolutions so you can print them with better quality. Your typical computer screen (say 1024x768) is actually only about 800K pixels. A 1.3 megapixel image translates to 1280X1024. Anything larger and only a few people would be able to view the image completely on their screen. So in reality, if you intend to show your photos on the internet, it is best to reduce the dimensions of the photo. The site is set at 640x480 because that is the lowest of standard resolutions and it won't cause too much scrolling to view the image. In addition anyone with a larger resolution will be able to view the smaller images with ease.

FYI: It is said that for digital photos to reach the print quality of 35mm, digital cameras need to be at around 8 MegaPixels.

As far as I know, our previous server was run on UCSD bandwidth and storage which is why we WERE (and presumably SocalSV ARE) able to provide such high storage capacity. We don't need to 'leech' from UCSD anymore but the going legit has its limitations. As our membership rises we will definitely add more features (like bandwidth) to ensure a positive user experience on the site. We are looking for ways to integrate a photo gallery on the site and the feature will be coming soon. :)