Simviation Forums

With the recent increase in the quality of digital cameras, from 2mp just 2 years ago to 8mp+ in some cases now, it is getting harder to keep pictures below the 100kb limit, while keeping the quality, i am finding no problems with shooting aircraft in the air as the little detail keeps the size low even with little compression. But shots of aircraft or just anything on the ground with alot of detail are having to be compressed alot to get it under 100kb which is ruining a good picture. While i am not asking the total 500kb to be lifted i am just wondering if we could get away with an extra 10 to 20kb on some pictures so as not to ruin a good picture.

I agree Craig, I have some nice shots of the grounds at Airventure....and I just can't get them to look good while keeping them under the limit...

While I tend to agree I think most people don't take enough trouble processing/saving their photos. It's quite likely they don't know how. I can get most of mine at a reasonable quality with a little careful cropping before resizing. Then experimenting with the JPEG quality when saving. This only takes a few moments for each image. I use IrfanView for processing all the photos I post here so there's no need for expensive graphics editing software. If anyone has problems, send me an example & let me see what I can do.

Why not reduce the resolution that you take them at in the first place....  For all but the most experienced eye 2m pixels is not really that much different to 8m pixels. Plus you'll get more pics on your memory card

Just an Idea.

Doug, as you have seen my style of post processing isn't suited to the site in general its heavy on the filesize, i try to make the sacrifices of quality to post my photos here.
Eno, i cant reduce the resolution, for various reasons, number 1 because i need the larger size to crop edit and work with. 2 its a waste of money having a camera with 6mp if i am gonna have it set to 2mp all the time, while most here wouldn't notice, i can and in the end my photos are for me first. file space isn't a big worry for me. Remember i am using a DSLR which doesnt do the in camera processing that most digital cameras do.
I'm not asking to allow 200 or 300kb files just an assurance that we could get away with say 110kb, it just allows me to drop the compression a couple of % which makes a world of differance.
thanks guys.

#1 upload your regular image to the Simviation site.

#2 upload a thumbnail (or reduced size/quality) image to the Simviation site.

Make your post with the thumbnail, and make it a clickable link to the full image (click on the thread's image and you'll open a separate window with the full image)

It's a little more work, granted, but that way it allows the thread to be within the posted forum rules, reasonably easy to load for those still with dialup connections, and *if the viewer wants*  they can call up the full size image.

#1 upload your regular image to the Simviation site.

#2 upload a thumbnail (or reduced size/quality) image to the Simviation site.

Make your post with the thumbnail, and make it a clickable link to the full image (click on the thread's image and you'll open a separate window with the full image)

That still restricts you to the 100k per image limit. I can see the guys in the Screenies forums complaining if Pete relaxed the rules just for photos. It's either all or nothing & this could cause complications.

Using the above method I see no reason you couldn't link the thumbnail to a hi-res image posted on a separate site but surely that would defeat the object. If you really can't get the images below the 100k limit try reducing the pixel width a little. 750 or 700 pixels might make all the difference.

Mmm, an interesting one...

I see where you're coming from Craig - most of my (better) photos when I edit them before posting come to around 100 to 115kb - most of my last set from Old Warden suffered from that (hence I tend to post photos with sky in the background!) - and that was with about 80% image quality at 800x600 (having already cropped the image) with Irfanview.

A 10-20kb increase wouldn't be a bad thing, and it may avoid people uploading even larger files linked by thumbnails as may well happen - as we've seen some posters (no one here I may add ) find it hard enough to read the forum rules on image posting already!

*edited for spelling...

...I managed to spell post in the same way as toast!!!

Like Doug suggested - I will also take part in this :

1. Send me the image you are talking about

2. I will post it in the original format on this thread +(plus) a ACDSee (Irfanview just the same) reduced filesize & see if you can REALLY see much difference....


The difficult ones tend to be the ones with a lot of vegitation in the background (trees, etc)  - which mean a lot of pixels to create the image .....

WE tend to overlook slighly oversized images  - provided they are genuine attempts to reduce file size...... (I have seen images @ 380K that could be ACDSEE'd to 60K with a click of a button)  ....  

Hi Pete, i will send you an image shortly, one that i have had problems in the past with nothing particular though. I'm not asking for 300kb images to be let through though. Thats when it becomes silly as it would take long enough to load on dial up.
Its mainly for those images with more detail as i said originally.

infact to save time here is the photo as its only a temp thing.
First is the one with less compression. in PSP7 its at 10% compression 1% is 400kb in size so thats well to much.

Second is compressed at a level of 38% to get it under the 100k limit.

Craig - To my eyes, I can't tell the difference....

couple of places to look. The flowers on both the left and right hand side are much clearer and sharper. and in general the tree's themselves are actually much crisper than in the compressed one, in the compressed one they are almost like a painting. In the end this was a bad picture to use as its not got a particular subject, but it was the best i could use for now.
Also at the very top of the picture where the train tracks end theres a concrete walkway, growing on it is some vine, its mocu more visable in the lower compression. I know its not much, but i tend to be see these things and to me they stand out like a sore thumb. I would never ask that a picture like this be allowed to have a 200kb size on here, as its just not a good picture. But its an example of the details which can be lost or gained in for instance aircraft shots on the ground.

infact to save time here is the photo as its only a temp thing.
First is the one with less compression. in PSP7 its at 10% compression 1% is 400kb in size so thats well to much.

Well Craig, I don't know what sort of monitor you have but I can't see the difference either. Mine's a bog-standard 17".

I downloaded your first shot & it's exactly 200 kb on my HD. Here it is after saving at 67% quality with IrfanView. It comes out at 99.6 kb.



It's a nice shot. I recognise where it was taken too.

Hi Doug,
firstly Thanks.
I am using a flatscreen laptop, no idea what type, just runs at 1280x800. Maybe i am just really picky but i can just see when an image isn't at all sharp.