[rjabend]

Thanks! Did you mean "pixel count" ? If so, that seems strange! It seems that it should just give an error, not post the JPG upside down. I appreciate your fixing it though.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by rjabend

Thanks! Did you mean "pixel count" ? If so, that seems strange! It seems that it should just give an error, not post the JPG upside down. I appreciate your fixing it though.

I'm referring to the dimension, the max is 3024 x 4032 however I have notice those at or approaching the limit will flip. I generally never post one with a side over 1600.

[rjabend]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

I'm referring to the dimension, the max is 3024 x 4032 however I have notice those at or approaching the limit will flip. I generally never post one with a side over 1600.

Thanks again. When you multiply 3024 x 4032, you get "pixel count" which is the correct term and it determines how much memory is used by the image. Turning the photo upside down doesn't make any sense! An error message should be provided and the photo rejected so the poster can reduce the size and resubmit. Just MHO. I'll keep the flip in mind now that I know what it means and thanks for explaining the bug.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by rjabend

Thanks again. When you multiply 3024 x 4032, you get "pixel count" which is the correct term and it determines how much memory is used by the image. Turning the photo upside down doesn't make any sense! An error message should be provided and the photo rejected so the poster can reduce the size and resubmit. Just MHO. I'll keep the flip in mind now that I know what it means and thanks for explaining the bug.

True but meaningless to the discussion since the maximum is not based on pixel count. It is based on the size of the width and height.

[TurtleBoy]

So your issue doesn't seem to be the size limitation. I took your original image, flipped it and it posted just fine. Of course my flipping and saving it could have changed some internal property that was causing it to go upside down.

[TurtleBoy]

Another test shows they must have eliminated the size constraint. I changed the flipped original to be 6000 x 4500 and as shown below it posts just fine.

Even that and the above, I think we can eliminate the size as the issue. Are you using an iPhone to take the pictures? I remember reading about an issue with iPhone pics going upside down due to how Apple stores some image date but don't remember the details on them. If you are doing this on a MacBook. Trying opening and saving in Preview prior to posting, I think that was a solution for having the data saved correctly.

Edit: So after posting this I saved the image from the forum and it looks like the upload process now changes the size when the image is uploaded. The 6000 x 4500 image uploaded is now 3024 x 2268 when downloaded.

[rjabend]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

True but meaningless to the discussion since the maximum is not based on pixel count. It is based on the size of the width and height.

It is based on pixel count and the compression algorithm used such as JPEG and GIF. Note that JPEG can reduce the file size from approximately 12 megapixels to a file size of 5.72 MB and GIF can reduce the file size from approximately 4 megapixels to a file size of 5.72 MB. A difference between GIF and JPEG is then compression ratio. Both GIF and JPEG allowable file sizes are based on PIXEL COUNT. Also the initial "width X height" is essentially synonymous with "pixel count".

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by rjabend

It is based on pixel count and the compression algorithm used such as JPEG and GIF. Note that JPEG can reduce the file size from approximately 12 megapixels to a file size of 5.72 MB and GIF can reduce the file size from approximately 4 megapixels to a file size of 5.72 MB, The difference between GIF and JPEG is then compression ratio. Both GIF and JPEG allowable file sizes are based on PIXEL COUNT. Also the initial "width and height" is synonymous with "pixel count".

I will go with what the forum says but you may be correct. I think the testing may show you aren't but it really doesn't matter.

[TurtleBoy]

Ran a test and it is definitely not pixel count but rather the maximum height and width as I said. I created the image below with a size of 5000 x 2268 which would be a pixel count of 11,340,000 which would be below the maximum you proposed using the count so no adjustment would be needed when uploading. That was not the case though as after uploading the image size was changed to 3024 x 1372. That was done because the width exceeded the maximum allowed.

[Sat Pat]

I believe this has something to do with the way EXIF metadata related to image rotation is stored by Apple devices, and its incompatibility with the version of the vBulletin platform on which Bimemrpost runs.

I searched a few months ago why some of my images (usually uploaded from my iPad) were randomly rotated and found the below discussions:

https://forum.vbulletin.com/forum/vb...etting-rotated

https://forum.vbulletin.com/forum/vb...-auto-rotating

If any photo you post from an Apple device is rotated, you can fix it by first saving a partially rotated image (say 90/180/270 degrees) locally, then saving it again with the correct rotation (360 degrees, so that it is again right side up), and then uploading it.

My theory is that the manual rotation likely updates the rotation-related fields in the metadata, from say a Null value to a 0 value (or otherwise changes something), which vBulletin is able to recognize. (This is not my area of expertise though, so I'm purely speculating!)

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by Sat Pat

I believe this has something to do with the way EXIF metadata related to image rotation is stored by Apple devices, and its incompatibility with the version of the vBulletin platform on which Bimemrpost runs.

I searched a few months ago why some of my images (usually uploaded from my iPad) were randomly rotated and found the below discussions:

https://forum.vbulletin.com/forum/vb...etting-rotated

https://forum.vbulletin.com/forum/vb...-auto-rotating

If any photo you post from an Apple device is rotated, you can fix it by first saving a partially rotated image (say 90/180/270 degrees) locally, then saving it again with the correct rotation (360 degrees, so that it is again right side up), and then uploading it.

My theory is that the manual rotation likely updates the rotation-related fields in the metadata, from say a Null value to a 0 value, which vBulletin is able to recognize.

Thanks, that is the one I remember reading about. I believe your theory is correct and the rotating, or resizing, will save the data in a way it can be read correctly.

[rjabend]

I limited the depth of my description and thought thought I would post this. It is probably a little more in depth than needed, but you can skip over some parts. Hope this helps gain an understanding of photo file sizes.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by rjabend

I limited the depth of my description and thought thought I would post this. It is probably a little more in depth than needed, but you can skip over some parts. Hope this helps gain an understanding of photo file sizes.

Good info but not relevant to what we were discussing. The limits are exactly as I posted and explained.

[rjabend]

-

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by rjabend

Relevancy determination requires an understanding of the fundamentals and willingness to listen.

Then review the information presented and you will see it is not relevant. The limits are a very easy concept to grasp, not sure why you are ignoring that and trying to complicate things.

[rjabend]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

Then review the information presented and you will see it is not relevant. The limits are a very easy concept to grasp, not sure why you are ignoring that and trying to complicate things.

Sorry, while I believe you are wrong, I should not have gone off topic with an unhelpful post.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by rjabend

Sorry, while I believe you are wrong, I should not have gone off topic with an unhelpful post.

Why do you think the system is not operating according to the parameters it shows as well as the test data that shows it is operating according to the limits?

It seems pretty cut and dried as they say there are three limits for posting a jpeg/jpg image: The file size can't be more than 5.72MB, the width can't exceed 3,024 pixels and the height can't exceed 4,032 pixels.

When posting an image that exceeds either the maximum width or height the image is resized on upload so the offending side(s) are brought down to the maximum.

[J-RO]

Time to move on from the pixels!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rjabend]

Originally Posted by TurtleBoy

Why do you think the system is not operating according to the parameters it shows as well as the test data that shows it is operating according to the limits?

It seems pretty cut and dried as they say there are three limits for posting a jpeg/jpg image: The file size can't be more than 5.72MB, the width can't exceed 3,024 pixels and the height can't exceed 4,032 pixels.

When posting an image that exceeds either the maximum width or height the image is resized on upload so the offending side(s) are brought down to the maximum.

OK, let’s retrace where we have been:
- Your comment: Here you go. It exceeded the pixel size.

The size of a pixel is probably not relevant. There is a term called pixel depth which is the size of the word defining each pixel’s precision in describing colors.

- Your comment: I'm referring to the dimension, the max is 3024 x 4032 however I have notice those at or approaching the limit will flip. I generally never post one with a side over 1600.

Those dimensions are the number of pixels on the width and height of the image. Not pixel “size” and as shown, it only applies to jpe, jpeg, jpg, & png format images not, as an example, gif in the chart you provided.

- Your comment: True but meaningless to the discussion since the maximum is not based on pixel count. It is based on the size of the width and height.
Attached Images

The “size of the width and height” are in themselves pixel counts and the total pixel count is a key factor in file size. I don’t find anything in my comment to be “true but meaningless”.

I believe I may be using standard technical terminology that you are not familiar with. I don’t mean that in a derogatory manner but suggest you reconsider.

I could site other examples but won’t for the purpose of brevity. If my above commentary doesn’t make sense to you, I suggest we drop the discussion, as suggested.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by rjabend

OK, let’s retrace where we have been:
- Your comment: Here you go. It exceeded the pixel size.

The size of a pixel is probably not relevant. There is a term called pixel depth which is the size of the word defining each pixel’s precision in describing colors.

- Your comment: I'm referring to the dimension, the max is 3024 x 4032 however I have notice those at or approaching the limit will flip. I generally never post one with a side over 1600.

Those dimensions are the number of pixels on the width and height of the image. Not pixel “size” and as shown, it only applies to jpe, jpeg, jpg, & png format images not, as an example, gif in the chart you provided.

- Your comment: True but meaningless to the discussion since the maximum is not based on pixel count. It is based on the size of the width and height.
Attached Images

The “size of the width and height” are in themselves pixel counts and the total pixel count is a key factor in file size. I don’t find anything in my comment to be “true but meaningless”.

I believe I may be using standard technical terminology that you are not familiar with. I don’t mean that in a derogatory manner but suggest you reconsider.

I could site other examples but won’t for the purpose of brevity. If my above commentary doesn’t make sense to you, I suggest we drop the discussion, as suggested.

I think you must have missed a bunch of postings in the discussion we are having. The total pixel count is not part of the limit for the uploading. When I said pixel size I was not referring to the size of the pixel itself but rather the size of the height and width of the image. That obviously was not the correct terminology but it had no bearing on the overall topic since it was explained and shown many times what I was referring to.

Once again I strongly suggest you review the postings so you can see what the limits are. Then again, I suspect you did since you could not answer the question or refute anything in my summary post but rather cherry-picked some postings that have long been explained/taken out of context as a way to deflect that inability.

[fly121]

My update was successful but I don’t have the start/stop option.

[rjabend]

That is surprising. I wonder if there is a configuration or software issue with the XB7.