Is it worth re-evaluating the non-subscriber limit on photo space?

Pretty much. You're telling me you can't scrape together $15 bucks between March '03 and June '05?

C.

 

I depsise the attachment limitation, just as much as the not allowing pictures to show up in threads. Makes the forum look like from 1876. And 640x480? I don't care how exceptional the pic, I don't save it. The smallest pic I have is 800x600, and I usually never save anything under 1280x960.
That's why I don't bother with the subscription ... I won't post pictures 640x480 . If there was no limitation in resolution or size, now THAT would make a different. Hello 5MP quality pictures. That would be useful.

 

My resolution is bigger than yours......


Id love for you to posting hundreds of 3MB pictures for all of us to view.
It would take 20min to load a page. And lag up the site. I agree there should be some sort of a public file server, but seriously man, there is a good reason for the limit.

 

The $15 was worth it so I could swap avatars.

Pony up!

 

Actually, I was thinking about something like www.Imageshack.us does. Upload your picture, and it generates the code to show the picture as a clickable thumbnail. If you like the picture, click and see it full res, if not, it's not gonna slow down the loading of the page. 640x480 is a thumbnail. Lots of people have posted amazing pics (ie armen's lineup) ... but the pics are just too damn small to be interesting.
Oh, and that's 5MP, actually.

 

Speed of loading pages is of the utmost importance, in my opinion. Also, I'm glad we're forced to resize and upload pictures instead of embedding links to pics - That way, when I'm looking at a thread, I'm not seeing a bunch of red x's!

 

You guys are so old.
Check this. French forum. 220 pages of Ferrari pics. High res. Quick loading. And not a red X. It's just about pics, so there isn't any blah blah ... but you get the idea.
http://www.supercarfrance.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4
Or this post on jabbasworld ... 4 pages of Aston Martin ... no red Xs, and quick loading.
http://www.jabbasworld.net/viewtopic.php?t=21893&sid=d0a2e873bb90b9e4d992e92b11101c5a

I should mention I'm on cable ... but who still uses 56k today? Raise your hands

 

At least this forum doesn't require you to register to read the content. Those forums do.

And I'd love to register for the first one, but I don't speak Weak.

 

You serious? Damn ... I've been registered for a while ... never paid attention to that.
Meh ... forget it anyways. Looks like we're all happy with just talking around and no pics.

 

Looks that way.
If you have such a problem with it, then use a little more effort and host them on Imageshack and copy the link here. That's what I do when I want to show a high-res picture.

 

You just made another case in point, probably without meaning to.

This forum is really strong, partly because there is a high "signal-to-noise" ratio.

There is a focus on the conversation and dialogue, instead of on high-res pics, animated smileys, and huge avatars. Like this one: http://www.fullsizechevy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161546&page=1&pp=20

 

Dyslexia is such an interesting thing.....

I said 3MB. Meaning three Megabytes. I know what a megapixel is. I have a 8MP camera. I cant post my pics up here on Fchat. But somehow i can sleep at night....

And there is always email and image resizing programs. Even you can resize them through MSpaint!! And that's bundled with windows. Has been since i can remember.....

 

Now that is indeed a very valid point. I still tend to believe that with the users we have here, allowing more multimedia stuff wouldn't decrease the overall quality. As for signal-to-noise ... we're in the off-topic section! LMAO

Mike ... I can't even resize a pic with Paint! Never used it. I can use photoshop though. And my pics out of the camera are 2,5Mb LOL

 

In off-topic, the noise IS the signal!

 

The only exception to the rule should be the bikini thread, And that *cough* *cough* thread in the *cough* *cough* forum.

 

I believe that rather than trying to "drive someone away who would otherwise add value to the site", they are trying to encourage the more active users to support the site. Also, images use more bandwidth than text, and bandwidth costs money. Not to say that any one user is going to use up $15.00 worth of bandwidth in a year, but it's only fair that the ones who use the most help pay for it.
A simple solution is to host the images elsewhere and post links to them. You don't even have a size limit that way.

 

Too bad all the non-rossa subscribers don't know *cough* *cough* which thread you're talking about.

 

That's a pretty weak justification.

I personally love the 600x400 limit as it speeds up the pages and doesn't distort the text. We ALL have larger/more detailed pics, but we take the time to resize and optimize them so that we're not waiting 5 minutes for 100 2.5MB pics to load (most users fall between dial-up & T1 IMHO). I create separate directories for my posted & saved pics, and if anyone would like a larger version I can easily upload them to one of my sites so they can download on their own time.

Small pics, small avatars, no sigs.. you may not like the lack of flash on here, but some of us actually appreciate it!

C.

 

do I have to type clickable thumbnails in each of my replies?

Anyways ... let's leave it at that.

 

Amen brother!

Add to that NO animated smileys.

 

SUBSCRIBE already!


I would however like to see uploads of native-res (ie 2-3-whatever megapixel) and the server auto-resize to 640x480 for inline viewing.

Text link to "full res image" right next to the inline, all automatic.

I did it once, in 1992, on SGI servers, it is hardly impossible.

 

kindof. i ran out and i wish i had more space to post pics but im 17 and i dont have 15 bucks to spare.

exactly what i do. i ran out of space in about 2-3 months, now i just make different galleries on webshots and post there. takes an extra 5 mins, depending on how many pics, but it works. no complaints.

 

Agree with others, pony up a paltry $15 if it means that much to you. it is not just disc space, but also the cost of bandwidth so others can see your photo. Then there is the cost to archive/backup said data. How about the cost to maintain the entire website... You get the idea.

Pony up $15.

As for image size, if you need larger than offered here feel free to outsource your images and provide a link here so others can click on it and see it.