UBB.threads PHP Forum Software Community Forums UBB.threads 7 Version 7 Support photos/images

now that photobucket changed the terms for thirt party exposure then I keep getting questions from our members.
I don't want to allow all members to be able to upload image/photos however with a small fee they can upgrade membership.
they need to reduce the size to less than 300KB to upload in a thread.

If I allow them to upload more then I have a bunch of questions

1, it happens that I need to delete members or delete threads, what happen if I delete a post that has an uploaded photo does the uploaded photo vanish as well when I delete the post?
2, if I delete a member and his posts does the photos delete too?

3, how many photos will over time be uploaded, let say different members upload 100 or 1000 or 10000 or 100000 or even 1000000+ what is maximum photos that a folder can contain? is there a max amount photos or combined mb or gb size?

I think that all attached photos ends up in one folder for all the posts - right? and three folders for gallery photos right? small med and large.

Think its best to know as much as possible before I encourage members to upload more.

Thank you for your advice

PS any other info on this subject is highly appreciated

The only way to delete a image is via the file manager attached to that post.

Delete a post : Images are stored in upload directory and not deleted.

Delete a member same as above.

Your limited by the physical disc space of your server.

Uploads my users have used about 7Gb over 5yrs.

My min upload size is now 3mb. Max 6mb.
You will find it difficult for a modern mobile device to take a picture less than 1mb.

ATTACHMENTS and GALLERY are two different systems, both of which are deleted when a post is removed (see deletepost.inc.php ~line 118-224 in v760).

v7.6.+ has seen significant improvements from the v7.5 series, especially in the upcoming v7.6.1 release which will compress image attachments like what's done for Gallery Forums. clicky

I have my forums setup to allow 8mb uploads, they're compressed according to the settings in the control panel (which will reflect 7.6.1 settings when released).

If you delete a member and choose to delete his posts, it'll delete attachments and gallery posts. If you chose not to, it won't.

Gizmo

This sounds promising I know that 7.6.1 will compress sizes but I was not aware it included regular forum posts I believed it was only for gallery posts.
will it compress excisting photos also or only new uploaded photos?

I'm very happy to hear that when I delete threads or posts that it will also delete attached files. Good

when 7.6.1 becomes available I would really be interested to know which settings is the best to use.
In the past I have tried to use 800pixels as the largest possible for the reason that otherwise large images could screw up the layout fo the thread.

Then we have the KB or MB on ea image settings but that is more important to know when we come near to download next version.

Btw you look like a happy scout on your avatar

Gallery posts have always compressed, general attachments will compress as of 7.6.1 (once it's out the door anyhow). It will only affect new uploads; you could use something like JPEGMini to compress old attachments.

As for gallery/attachments settings we always recommend ImageMagick over GD as it produces clearer images; the defaults as of 7.6 are 125, 480, 1920 pixels; 80% 70% 60% quiality

And TY, it was a fun trip last week, luckly I didn't throw my back out until AFTER we got home, lol.

Thanks Giz, I have not really a need to resize old files as I have restricted images to less than 300kb.

hmm, I am using GD2 cause it was only available in my CP. Dunno how to start to use ImageMagick, could you point me how to install it?

So I just reset my settings to 125, 480, 1920 pixels; 80% 70% 60% quality to use same as default.
I think the only different is that it used to be 200, 480, 1920 pixels; 80% 70% 60% quiality.

GD is shipped with PHP, it's why it's always an option. ImageMagick is a 3rd party system binary (it has to be installed on the server). Commonly the paths to IM are:
/usr/bin/convert
/usr/bin/mogrify

If you have SSH access you can just try:
which convert
which mogrify

If they're installed then it'll tell you the paths, if it isn't installed it'll tell you.

Found convert binary:
[root@server ~]# which convert
/usr/bin/convert

No convert binary:
[root@server ~]# which convert
/usr/bin/which: no convert in (/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/root/bin)

As for dimensions, I use 200px for thumbnails, you can too.

Giz, The only way I connect to my server is via ftp and cpanel I am not familiar with SSH so I would not at this point know how to try what you suggest.
I'll open up my CPanel and see there.


I will change to 200px for thumbn..
Off to bed here workday tomorrow

SSH is generally how your server techs maintain your server (installing updates (manually, through yum, or through apt), creating backups, etc.), it provides a command line interface to the underlying operating system of your server.

The UBB.threads control panel is capable of reporting current settings, but does not check for the existence of ImageMagick.

I do offer Server Maintenance Services, but managing a server is well out of the free realm of user to user support.

Gizmo,

Thank you for your offer I'll keep it in mind.
I do have a learing curve about IM.

I copied your text

Interserver VPS support answered

So I added in the Paths & Url's setting /usr/bin/convert & /usr/bin/mogrify in forum CP and now I see IM as an option in Graphics Library To Use

Do you think its safe to switch to IM??? I am not certain that IM is installed but I think it is and I have asked the support to answer that question. Just did that.

Oh I tested to lower the Full size images to 50% and tested on GD2, I can't see see any different with my eyes but one photo went from 321KB to 279KB.

Thanks for your input

OK I receive an answer to my question


the answer is

result report.

I have made a test
uploaded one 1,9mb image using GD2 and then using same image with imagemagick

image uploaded was 1,9MB limit is set to 2mb
After GD2 60% IMG_0982.JPG 1920 x 1440 (171.05 KB)
After IMAGEMAGICK 60% IMG_0982.JPG 1920 x 1440 (409.54 KB)

Now I wonder how come GD2 compresses to half of IM's size?

See links
GD2
http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showgallery&Number=702879

IM
http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showgallery&Number=702881


this is my setting in the test default values

I wonder what should I chose and can IM settings be altered somewhere?

PS I have returned to GD2 in the CP settings just to be sure

Use ImageMagick. Its cleaner. Has more options for compression and dimensions , allows compression of animated gif files, can manipulate EXIF data... and is more current than the php inbuilt version of GD2.

OK I changed to ImageMagick,

I do wonder how I can change settings for IM so it compresses more.


the GD2 image became 1920x1440 px in size
http://www.britbike.com/forums/gallery/32/full/2630.jpg

the imagemagick image became 3264 × 2448 px
http://www.britbike.com/forums/gallery/32/full/2631.jpg

I wonder how that is.. and it must be the reason its 409kb vs 171kb

Any ideas?
thanks

Both Quality and Dimensions affect the file size; an image with smaller dimensions would be smaller, and saying you want super crappy visual quality would also make the filesize smaller. Either way, being able to bring a 6mb file down under 1mb is a pretty big feat.

UBBT 7.5.x and 7.6.0 only allow image compression adjustments to gallery forums. Attached images in regular forums are left untouched, just as they were originally upload.

UBBT 7.6.1+ brings that feature to regular post attachments as well. It can be customized to image dimensions and compression percentage... or completely disabled for all attachments, if youd like to continue with the "classic" style of image attachment handing.

I understand what you are saying and we are talking about Gallery not Forum images but there is a different when I upload with GD2 vs IM




Why is it that the IM did not follow the settings to 1920 for the full size?

Simply put: Different programs use different processing algorithms.

File size does not tell the whole story of whats being stripped. Smaller file size can (and usually do) reduce quality and could strip the included meta data from the image.

Yes I understand that programs work differently.

Sorry for my nagging here.. but I feel its important to me and maybe you missed my question or I was unclear.


Wonder why did GD2 resize the image 2630.jpg down to 1920x1440 px and IM 2631.jpg down only to 3264 × 2448 px?
I used the same original photo and the gallery setting for full image is "1920".
I understand if you don't know why but my point is that I also want the IM to resize it down to "1920"

PLEASE NOTICE NEW INFO
I noticed when I also uploaded the original image in a forum that it was same size 3264 × 2448 px as the IMAGEMagig image in the gallery.
It had not resized the image but ONLY compressed it in the Gallery using IM!!!

original photo thread
http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=702898#Post702898
original photo
http://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=2632&filename=IMG_0982.JPG

Does this help you in the analyse? maybe a bug or maybe a fault in my end.

Thanks for any input

1)
forum attachments in 760 and older do not get processed at all.

gallery attachments in 760 and older get processed by your image handler.


2) IIRC...
i think there may have been an long standing issue within the image processing instructions in prior versions of ubbt. those instructions have since been corrected to work as intended for 761+

Isaac

you wrote

1)
forum attachments in 760 and older do not get processed at all. >>>>> yes I get that

gallery attachments in 760 and older get processed by your image handler. Yes I get that to but the IM handler if I can call it that don't resize the Gallery full image to 1920
as the GD2 handler does.. This is my issue now it should do that right !???

2) IIRC...
i think there may have been an long standing issue within the image processing instructions in prior versions of ubbt. those instructions have since been corrected to work as intended for 761+ >>>> dunno about this one but I guess you have

Thanks