Limit?! We do allow +4000kb images.

Ohhhhhhhh. OHHHHHHH.
Do you get your photos on other sites resized to 640x480?
Point me please to a link on the other site when you have your image in 640 pixels width YET +4000Kb size?

I will repeat one more time: IT IS NOT ABOUT MONEY, IT IS NOT ABOUT EVEN SPACE ON THE SERVER, IT IS NOT ABOUT THINGS BEING CHEAPER OR EXPENSIVE.

IT IS ABOUT CURRENT SITE LAYOUT. WE ARE FORCED TO DISPLAY IMAGES AT 640px WIDTH.

When you resize 8Mb image to that size you loose tons of quality. Surprise?
And yet, the resized image is rather small, about 50-100Kb, which is NORMAL
for such a small dimensions.

PNG's in 640px are HUGE because the format is lossless.
Of course they look better.
But we can't accept the situation when such a small image loads forever.
Yes, sometimes it takes 20-25 seconds (!!) to load the page because of that.
Lots of members have rather poor internet connection. Take some mobile users, for example.

SO, AGAIN: IT IS ABOUT LAYOUT. WE ARE WORKING ON MAKING THE SITE LAYOUT RESPONSIVE
TO THE BROWSER SCREEN. WE ARE GOING TO DISPLAY LARGER IMAGES (MORE QUALITY) ON
LARGE SCREENS. It is not really simple, but it's a top priority right now.

And, finally. We are nog an image hosting. We are not Flickr or Facebook.
We are about exotic cars spotting, and the SPOT QUALITY means MUCH MORE than
IMAGE QUALITY here.

Lol yes you allow 4000kb photos to be uploaded, but when they are displayed on the site they are resized to 50kb which turns the quality into cr*p. So just because some people have bad internet, everybody has to suffer and get their pics raped? I'd rather wait 10 seconds for a high quality photo, than 2 seconds for a pic which looks like cr*p. If you'd allow even 150-200kb size the photos would look much much better.

Lol rage.

I'm not sure why you all are so mad about this. If you want exceptional image quality, go to Flickr or another similar website. This website is about sharing your car spots and the community. The image quality shouldn't be this big of a deal.

I agree totally.

They are resized to 640x480, not to 50kb.
Should I underline this one more time?..



I don't think that things are that bad.



On the other hand, I prefer to wait for 1 second instead of 10.
If it takes 10 second to load - I want to leave the site.
And please don't talk about "some" and "everybody", unless you have _all_
the information in place.



It doesn't seem possible to do with png (to make images that small in size),
and it useless with jpeg (once resized to 640px, jpeg compression brings just a bit
quality for huge size increase).

Please read about 640px layout limitation again, if you still want to argue about bytes.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not that mad but I was just wondering, I guess it is time to let this thread die out.

Maybe the priority is just to make it 640 wide, but it just most of the time ends up in a 50kb image, whereas a 150kb image would look a lot better with a very minimal size increase, I don't know what programs or algorithms you use for the re-sizing, but something in there also enforces your preferred size of 40-60kb, otherwise they would end up being 200-500kb 640x480 JPG's.

Some examples:

<50kb


<100kb


<150kb


<200kb

1) It's not a Priority to make it 640 wide. It's a Requirement right now.
Because of the site design. I thought I explained this pretty well more than once.

2) Let's compare your best sample (196 kylobytes) and the version
which was produced by our current resize implementation (may differ
a bit from what was produced before, as we add some sharpness etc.
effects changes from time to time).

Our image (63kb):


Your best result (196kb):


Have a look.
Do you see a HUGE difference? I don't.
I even asked a man who never heard of ES to have a look at these two images.
He said that both are the same, but (he started to compare details with
a lot of attention) the second one is a bit better.

Yes, your sample is better, no doubt. But it is >3 times larger in size.
That slight advantage you have eats 133Kbs. Each spot page being compressed
(including html/css/js) takes less than your image. Thank you, but I don't
like to make the site load time to increase twofold just to get that quality
improvement.

And please lets stop here. We are working to make things look better in a proper
way. This way is not about making images fat for almost nothing. It's about design
being responsive, thus allowing large images (more quality) for large screens.