Photo Upload Not Working Well

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi MichaelG, that would explain the long delay in the middle of the upload, which is why I normally resize them, normally below about 1.5MB. Thanks for letting me know.

Regards Nick.

[Michael Gilligan]

On Michael Gilligan Said:

Just to add to the confusion, Nick … I saved your picture and then looked at the ‘info’ which only declares it as being 148kb

Methinks a lot of the delays might be in the forum software reprocessing images !!

MichaelG.

.

Too clever for me … but perhaps Dave could experiment.

Yes indeed, the forum resizes images down to make them web friendly:

lincolnMiller.jpg on my machine is 6833×5453 pixels in 7.3Mb.  The forum copy has been reduced to 1200×957 and a mere 56kB.

So there’s a delay whilst the forum waits to get the full image over the network and then another delay whilst it’s resized to reduce transmit time and not use lots of browser memory.  I proved these delays were a problem on the old forum, but so far I’ve failed to show they upset the new one.   At the moment my money is on this being a different problem.

Dave

 

[Mark EasingwoodParticipant @markeasingwood33578]

Thanks men.

I could probably do to upgrade t’internet, as I have been having trouble with my business acounting software being painfully slow.

(It is the of cloud based rented variety, forced up on us by the powers that be, and more costly than my old installed version. More costly still if I upgrade my internet! That’s my moan over for the day!)

Meanwhile I will shrink my images before up-loading.

Mark

[Michael Gilligan]

On Michael Gilligan Said:

You’ve shown me yours, Jason … so I better show you mine

MichaelG.

.

 

That doesn’t actually seem that good for (I think you said somewhere) fibre to the door. I’m getting 500-700 Mbps on the same site (well, actually fast.com) with just cable internet.

I am using a desktop though – not an iPad – but if the test is dependent on the device it makes it less than useful for comparison. I should try with an iPad.

Wonder if wifi affects it (mine is hard-wire – non wifi). If I use an iPad it will go through the wifi (which I presume yours does).

[Peter Greene]

On Peter Greene Said:

That doesn’t actually seem that good for (I think you said somewhere) fibre to the door. I’m getting 500-700 Mbps on the same site (well, actually fast.com) with just cable internet.

I am using a desktop though – not an iPad – but if the test is dependent on the device it makes it less than useful for comparison. I should try with an iPad.

Wonder if wifi affects it (mine is hard-wire – non wifi). If I use an iPad it will go through the wifi (which I presume yours does).

I was showing Jason the test-tool, Peter … not bragging about performance.

That’s why I took the trouble to mention the set-up

Yes, using Wi-Fi on the iPad [in a sub-optimal location, and with umpteen web-pages open] slows the performance significantly.

But, we’re trying to investigate a problem; not having a p*****g contest.

MichaelG.

[Michael Gilligan]

On Michael Gilligan Said:

But, we’re trying to investigate a problem; not having a p*****g contest.

 

Sorry -wasn’t suggesting that: just commenting on matters arising. It’s not important.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Thanks, Peter

Now we’ve got that clear [for the benefit of all the funny- bu***rs that seem to be on the forum these days] … please feel free to comment on any matters arising.

I think we’re all lost on this one at the moment.

MichaelG.

[Mark EasingwoodParticipant @markeasingwood33578]

Just an update.

I recently uploaded several photos into a post, I pre-shrunk them to 1500 pixels on the long edge, and they loaded a lot quicker.

Haven’t tried yet, but probably as low as 800 pixels on the long edge would be enough.

Mark.

[peak4Participant @peak4]

We’ve been through quite a lot of this before;
https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/topic/test-thread-for-inserting-images/page/2/#post-684466 and lots of others on that thread/topic.

When I was having quite an extensive play previously, it looked like the forum software re-sizes to 1200 pixels on the long edge (vertical or horizontal I think), and re-sampled to 96dpi, which is then stored on the server to minimise space requirements.
I think it displays at 1000 on a monitor, 800 on a tablet and 400 on a phone, but I’ll stand to be corrected on that.
If you upload at 72dpi, it stay’s that and isn’t up-sampled.

I did play extensively uploading large images, which didn’t immediately show, and guessed that the forum’s software might give the resizing/resampling routines a lower priority than other more important tasks.
That is, small images that didn’t need alteration showed up promptly, whereas a larger image in the same post.

All of this was before some of the forum speed upgrades.

Bill

[Author]

Posts