Uploading pictures vs. [img] to a URL

[cjj]

Perhaps this has been covered before, but it seems there ought to be a way to get inclusion of a picture to work the same way as "upload attachment".

Here's the issue. If I try to use the [img] method to, say, include a picture from the registry that happens to be 1024x768 resolution, I get this error:
Your images may only be up to 600 pixels high.
Your images may only be up to 800 pixels wide.

So, what to do? Well, just save the picture to my machine and upload it as an attachment! Yes, this works just fine since attachments seem to be regulated by the 300kB limit instead of a pixel resolution.

Now, not really knowing how all the BB code really does things, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that pointing to an existing image at some URL would save more server space than uploading an image.

So, would it be possible to get [img] inclusion to work the same as uploaded images where the image becomes a clickable thumbnail? This seems like a good idea to me.

[gibsonlp]

Hi CJ,
[img] tag basically embeds the image to the post in it's original size.
Making it possible to embed large images will make viewing of such topics very hard for those who use lower resolutions as it means they will have to scroll vertically as well.
I use 1920x1200 so I don't really have a problem with large images, but many people still run at 1024x768 and they will simply won't be able to browse such topics conveniently.
When you upload an image (instead of using the [img] tag to embed an external image) the forum will automatically create a thumbnail if your image is too large and will link to the full size image. This is the best option.
Don't worry about bandwidth and disk space, we prefer having the images on our server, you can never tell if the external sites will live forever and we don't want broken links...

[cjj]

Gil, thanks for taking the time to look at this and answer.

I understand the issue regarding keeping the images small for those who don't have big displays (I run dual 1920 x 1200, so I'm real spoiled ). The idea about keeping the images on the server is good too.

I guess the main thing I'd like to see, if possible, it to make [img] do the same sort of thing as uploading, create a thumbnail if the image is too large and link to the full size one. This seems possible since [img] is embedding the image anyway (copying it to the server, right?) and would certainly be easier for the user (at least for the same sizes that embedding will allow).

All in all, it's not a big problem, and if it's not easy to do, probably not worth it. It just seemed like a discrepancy in the way things work and seemed like it would be better if the behavior was the same for both sorts of image inclusion. I'm an Engineer in "real" life, so I guess picky details tend to bother me more than most...

[gibsonlp]

Hey there,
I will see if there is a way to do it, currently, linking to the image with [img] does NOT copy it to the server, it simply links to it, so creating a thumbnail is not really an option unless I change that behavior.
I agree that making both actions behave the same is probably better in terms of user experience, however - I am not sure how much modifications will it require. The more modifications I add - the more work I have on every upgrade.

Edit: And yes, I am a sucker for high-res too, my laptop (which I use 99% of the time) runs at 1920x1200 (on a tiny 15.4" screen, mind you! ).

[cjj]

Thanks for looking at it, I misunderstood you when you said [img] embeds the image at it's original size. I took this to mean that it copied it. I can see the issue with just linking to an external image, though it would be nice if that too did a thumbnail.

As I said before, it's not a big deal, so if it is too much work, don't bother.

Wow, 1920 x 1200 on a 15.4 inch screen. You must have much better eyes that I do! I use 24 inch displays and sometimes think 1920 x 1200 is too small!

[gibsonlp]

I use Apple Cinema View 23" at home, it runs at 1920x1200 as well and before I ordered the laptop I wondered if 15.4" would be too small for such resolution, however - having such a huge desktop area on my laptop is simply incredible.