# Making a "bigger" upload?



## Daniel Kay (Jul 12, 2008)

Hi there, i was working on a small sequence but wanted to post it in one picture as it was planned to be all in one line... however due to the maximum size limit the picture would be too small to still look ok... it would be quite wide but not very high so probably still have a ok file size

So my question is would it be possible to have an "exception" and upload a bigger image if you ask a site admin for it or is the limit hard coded and i can only link to a bigger image?


----------



## dmfalk (Jul 12, 2008)

I think it's hardcoded into the PHP coding, although it WOULD be nice to allow full-size submissions via the "Download" option... The ONE THING I think dA actually had done right.

d.m.f.


----------



## RailRide (Jul 12, 2008)

If it's a sequence of pictures large enough to be displayed seperately, FA allows you to create links in the descriptions so the viewer can follow them in order. All you need is the serial numbers from the end of the image's URL. It was done for comics, but it works equally well for sequences of full-size images.

---PCJ


----------



## Daniel Kay (Jul 12, 2008)

RailRide said:


> If it's a sequence of pictures large enough to be displayed seperately, FA allows you to create links in the descriptions so the viewer can follow them in order. All you need is the serial numbers from the end of the image's URL. It was done for comics, but it works equally well for sequences of full-size images.
> 
> ---PCJ



No i wanted to post it in ONE pic for a certain "effect" but it doesnt work out well with the size limit


----------



## Rhainor (Jul 12, 2008)

The general consensus is that you should upload the full-size version somewhere else, upload the small one to FA, and link to the big one in the description.


----------



## Daniel Kay (Jul 12, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> The general consensus is that you should upload the full-size version somewhere else, upload the small one to FA, and link to the big one in the description.



Well i guess i'll just uplaod a "preview" to FA and the full version to another site then


----------



## Delian (Jul 12, 2008)

I think it would be nice if FA limited the size of the picture by the number of pixels, instead of each resolution axis.

A 1600x1200 picture has 1,920,000 pixels.
But a 3000x600 picture has 1,800,000 pixels.

So 2nd picture is actually smaller than the first, but it gets resized. This should be changed.


----------



## Rhainor (Jul 12, 2008)

Delian said:


> I think it would be nice if FA limited the size of the picture by the number of pixels, instead of each resolution axis.
> 
> A 1600x1200 picture has 1,920,000 pixels.
> But a 3000x600 picture has 1,800,000 pixels.
> ...



No, it shouldn't.  People in general _do not like_ to be forced to scroll horizontally.  This is why the dimension limits were dropped from 4000 to 1200.


----------



## Eevee (Jul 12, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> No, it shouldn't.  People in general _do not like_ to be forced to scroll horizontally.


I imagine that's why there's a halfview?


----------



## Rhainor (Jul 12, 2008)

That's only acceptable to some people, though.

Many people prefer to have the image automatically display at max resolution and put up with some scrolling, than to have to click something extra to see all the detail.  I am one of these, although detail only wins out by a small margin for me.

For the record, the dimension limit wasn't put in place for the sake of people like me.


----------



## Firon (Jul 13, 2008)

1280 is still silly small. I've got a big monitor, and others have even larger.


----------



## Rhainor (Jul 13, 2008)

Firon said:


> 1280 is still silly small. I've got a big monitor, and others have even larger.



And there's plenty of people who are still running 800x600 or 1024x768 resolution.  Until just recently, I was stuck with a monitor that made anything above 1152x864 (one step above 1024x768) pointless.


----------



## tacticalsnake (Jul 13, 2008)

I have a large moniter (two, in fact), but I absolutely abhor large images. I don't really see what's so attractive about images over 700 px in any dimension on the internet. Seriously. Granted, this is because I hate scrolling, and I would prefer to see the whole image in one view. 
That's just my 2 cents.


----------



## Daniel Kay (Jul 13, 2008)

Hey now i didnt mean ALWAYS uplaoding huge ass images, i ment asking a mod if you're allowed to upload ONE big image NOW AND THEN like maybe have a BIG upload every month... i hate overly huge pictures too BUT sometimes you just HAVE a image that needs to be bigger in order to look good (like large group pics, you wouldnt want to split those too)


----------



## ExTo (Jul 13, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> And there's plenty of people who are still running 800x600



I admit.


----------



## Firehazard (Jul 13, 2008)

I thought I heard that Ferrox was going to include a "Report Violation" link on the submission-view page (and in either case it ought to).  So, if uploading images that are unreasonably huge (keyword: "unreasonably") is against the rules, we could just put that in the list of available reasons for reporting.  Then we can bump the software-enforced limits back up and let those who would object, do so officially and efficiently.

Some things still merit large images, namely tutorials and sometimes memes (though I will admit I like the fact that the FA-originated memes are all in a square format).


----------



## KamuiNeko (Jun 21, 2009)

dmfalk said:


> I think it's hardcoded into the PHP coding, although it WOULD be nice to allow full-size submissions via the "Download" option... The ONE THING I think dA actually had done right.
> 
> d.m.f.


 why no one posted an answer for this?
currently is useless the "download" button since it shows the same pic with the same resolution, besides you can download it by right clicking it, without having to do first the click in the "download" and then right click the image
it is only useful for the text and flash submissions
showing a smaller preview from a big submission shouldn't be a challenge for php coder, it's just a couple of keywords in html code (http://www.mediacollege.com/internet/html/image-tag.html)
i don't know php but it doesn't seem more complex than that (http://www.white-hat-web-design.co.uk/articles/php-image-resizing.php)



			
				Rhainor said:
			
		

> And there's plenty of people who are still running 800x600 or 1024x768 resolution. Until just recently, I was stuck with a monitor that made anything above 1152x864 (one step above 1024x768) pointless.


But that people still has to scroll with a 1280x1280 picture, so should the submissions be limited to 800x600?


please let us post wallpapers for full hd monitors :[
why having a 10MB file size limit if we can't upload stuff over 1280x1280, and they will be formated in jpg automatically 
i dont think is possible for a jpg file of that resolution to even reach 2MB in the first place


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 21, 2009)

Firon said:


> 1280 is still silly small. I've got a big monitor, and others have even larger.


True, but I have a 1920x1200 resolution monitor, and an image at 1280x1280 still requires a bit of scrolling.

Much of the issue comes down to size/storage logistics, which is also a pain.


----------



## Jim094 (Jun 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> True, but I have a 1920x1200 resolution monitor, and an image at 1280x1280 still requires a bit of scrolling.
> 
> Much of the issue comes down to size/storage logistics, which is also a pain.



I guess what puzzles me after reading this thread is how some users manage to upload larger images anyway. Within the past two weeks I can recall seeing 3008x2008 and 3212x1564. Is it a DPI setting while saving?

For example:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2369985/


----------



## krisCrash (Jun 24, 2009)

I can tell you but I don't think it's encouraged to use that, it's kind of an exploit


----------



## Armaetus (Jun 24, 2009)

Definitely an exploit, I've mentioned it before but why hasn't it been fixed...or are they just slating it for the unknown date Ferrox will be out?


----------



## Firehazard (Jun 25, 2009)

I hope they don't fix it, unless they're planning some way for bigger images to be available.  There are perfectly legitimate reasons why someone might want to upload larger pieces that aren't meant to be all on the screen at once.  Making people upload them somewhere else and then link them defeats the whole purpose of this site existing.  If they wanted to upload them somewhere else, they'd just use that site instead of this one!


----------

