It looks like one has to upload a video to a hosting site (e.g. YouTube) first. Is this correct? Thanks.
Is it possible to upload a video directly?
- Thread starter Number_35
- Start date
I'm surprised they allow photo uploads. How many is that? Like a few thousand a day? That's probably a few GB storage a day right there. Is there a time limit that they will be on the site?
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,408
Probably takes up a few hundred KB of space per photo
Most photos I upload are a couple of MB.
The site morphs the photo into a smaller file size when it's uploaded. Go save one of the photos you uploaded in one of your posts and then look at the file size compared to the one you uploaded from your device.
automatically resized and compressed.. why UOA screenshots arent legible sometimes.
Videos can be hundreds of MB for a relatively short one.
For example this fully stocked cabelas ammo aisle was 3.06MB
it is resized to 265k or less than 1/10th
youtube does the same thing of course.. I uploaded a 2.7GB dashcam video and its 154MB now.
why I dont recommend checking the quality of a dashcam based on someguy's youtube quality review.
you will see all sorts of compression artifacts esp at night on an uploaded youtube dashcam vid.
Last edited:
Correct, as video takes way too much storage space.
That wouldn't be much fun!
Usually about 100/day.
No limit
Correct
This and CloudFlare also compresses the files and stores several different sizes depending on the device type.
You should scale your images. I scale mine to 1024x768 pixels because that keeps the file size reasonable (805Kb max for an 8-bit jpg, usually less due to compression). You can scale images in any photo editor. On an Android phone you can use an app called Image Size. I use an image host because I do not want to burden BITOG with having to host my images.
Last edited:
I don't use the phone for taking pictures. I use a camera and whatever its set to and the photo averages 3-4 MB. I do have an image host and used that before the forums stored the pictures, but since I delete most photos from the host after a few months, they would also disappear from a forum post.
I said use an image editor and I pointed out that you can scale an image on even a phone with scaling software. The picture does not have to be taken with a phone. You delete your pictures and complain they won't be around after you have deleted them. Okay?
No, if they are uploaded here it won't matter if I delete them.
You should let the site scale them and display the appropriate ones based on the device that's viewing it. When you scale it to 1024 x 768 and someone views it on a computer, that is a small picture by today's standards. Odds are those are the type that are larger in the post than when you click on them expecting to get a "full size" version (that ends up being smaller!).
Great point!
Smaller images displayed at 100% tend to look better than larger images that get scaled down by a browser. The horizontal images I post at 1024x768 get displayed at 100% unless someone uses magnified view in their browser. Vertical images of the same size get scaled down considerably because there is apparently an image hight limit that's below 1024 pixels. If the browser is set to native resolution a 1024x768 image should look just fine even on a Retina display. It will just look smaller than it does on a lower res monitor. I find posting high-res images to be a waste of space. I don't need to see often blurry and out-of-focus pictures in large.
Who wants to upload 15Mb images and who wants to let them load?
Who wants to upload 15Mb images and who wants to let them load?
Last edited:
^ Some times there are better options. I do downscale in some cases (other sites) but instead use a photoshop plugin called ulead smartsaver pro, which lets me look at the detail in the image while adjusting the JPEG compression #, OR if I want to downsample to 8 bit color PNG for diagrams/etc that don't need full color. Then again if the target website is just going to downsample and convert to full color anyway, it's a wasted effort.
Even if you downsample it yourself, it may still be a wasted effort as some sites resample all images so you're just reducing quality twice by doing it ahead of time. I'd guess that "most" sites where you upload an 805K, mere 1024x768, might not resample smaller than 1024x768 but are still resampling to a higher JPEG compression, which would have turned out higher quality if it wasn't downsized the first time before the upload.
Even if you downsample it yourself, it may still be a wasted effort as some sites resample all images so you're just reducing quality twice by doing it ahead of time. I'd guess that "most" sites where you upload an 805K, mere 1024x768, might not resample smaller than 1024x768 but are still resampling to a higher JPEG compression, which would have turned out higher quality if it wasn't downsized the first time before the upload.
Similar threads
