attachments test August 2017

[brynn]

Testing large attachments

Ref older topic too:  https://forum.inkscapecommunity.com/index.php?topic=136.0
As I recall, mikey made some adjustment on the server to allow for these really large images.  Maybe I need to do that on our new server?

Ok yes, I tried to attach the same large PNGs as in the other topic, and I got the same error message you got.  So I think that points me to my new server.  I'll see what I can do

[Lazur]

Thank's!

This was the file in question: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qfenhd6cl1q2ggf/summr2.svg?dl=0

-around 3 MB svg-

[ranger]

testing

summr2.svg
(3166.49 kB - downloaded 206 times)

[Lazur]

 

[brynn]

new test

[brynn]

another

[brynn]

We can upload larger images than before, but still not as large as with the old server.

[brynn]

another  (just a jumble of imports for testing)

[brynn]

trying to determine whether it's dimension or weight that's the determining factor

[brynn]

seems that dimension is the limiting factor.  We have an idea about the height limit (~ 12000, depending on width).  Now to find width limit.

[brynn]

I guess 3800 is a fairly loose limit.  Let's see if it will go to 4000.  Although it also probably depends on the height.

Let's try giant tortoise image ~5600 x 3750

Nope.  And 3600 x 2400 was too large too.

Lazur, do you know the pixel size of a 35mm photo?  Maybe I can look it up....

Edit
Well I guess that's not an easy question to answer.  Some say it's the size of the original tortoise image (which didn't upload).  Others say more like 2100 x 1600.

Trying tortoise at 2800 x 1866

[Lazur]

4608 px / 3456 px is a common size.

Embedding one, attaching it doesn't work.

[brynn]

I was thinking that for a graphics forum, it ought to be able to accept attachments that size.  Although I'm not sure if that's realistic or not.  It seems reasonable to me.  But on the other hand, it seems really large!

[brynn]

Ok, so they've made another adjustment (a few hours before you tried the above).  But I'll test again now.

[Lazur]

The optimal embedded image on a regular 1366 px / 768 px screen is 800 px wide -so yes, an unprocessed photograph is unreasonably large for a forum.

[ranger]

test

[ranger]

Test 2 from support team

[brynn]

new test

[Lazur]

What have I done. Didn't think it was such a Pandora's box.

Off-Topic: show

By the way that photograph shows a 1:10 scale model of a stage in the woods, project from last semester. It weighs around 45 kg. Quite good I guess considering the (lack of) tools and space used.

[brynn]

I'm not sure exactly Pandora's box.  But I was suprised too.   To me, even on a non-graphics forum, people should be able to upload a good quality photo.  But since we're a graphics forum, I really thought it should be possible (yes, even though it's vector graphics).  I don't think we'll  be actually uploading this large of image very often.  But I also didn't want to have to explain limitations, when people would have trouble.  Plus, as we know, IF's future isn't great.  So I want this forum to be capable.

Part of the needed changes was to PHP, part was an SMF file (which handles some of the graphics), and part was increasing our upload limits.

Thanks for letting us use your photo for testing.  You mean like a stage for an orchestra?  I've seen them with that kind of dome or half dome.  It looks like it's made out of wood, but maybe something a little bigger than popsicle sticks?

[Lazur]

Not sure about the other forum's future. Have asked about it in our last vector meeting but either noone was interested/question was too pushy/everyone left already, so deleted those messages.
On the other side, I found it a bit odd that although now that the project owns the domain, it's not even listed on the community page.



The wood shingles were made of 3 mm thick plywood cut to roughly 250 mm /25 mm pieces.