Your images are TOO BIG to show in the thread......
RESIZE THE IMAGES: Your images are 300K Reduce the size (640X480 is a great size for posting here) and then edit the thread by replacing the 'big files' with the smaller images..........
------------------ Original Owner of a Silver '88 GT Under 'Production Refurbishment' @ 136k Miles
[This message has been edited by Vintage-Nut (edited 06-22-2024).]
Reduce the size (640X480 is a great size for posting here)
I agree that the image icons are a nuisance and unnecessary, but I'll disagree with resizing the images to 640x480. It's no longer 1999.
An image icon appears here (instead of the actual image) when the the image file size is greater than 2 MB. The image dimensions are relatively immaterial here. The forum software automatically shrinks the image dimensions to fit the format of the page.
Having said that, a resolution of 1920x1080 is plenty large for display online. The images posted above are 4032x3024, which of course also contributes to their large file size.
The image file sizes in the opening post are each about 3.7 MB. That's almost twice what is permitted here (hence the icons). If a higher compression was used and/or their dimensions were resized downwards, they could easily be reduced to under 2 MB apiece with no perceptible image degradation.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-23-2024).]
Nice idea but have problems even on GM cars using same blanks. 1 key "lost" now have to rekey several vehicles or sell/wreck 1 vehicle have problems too.
Just nice to see the lock apart if trying to repair the lock.
As to pic size... Both of you are "wrong."
Big size is not the only problem... Was likely "Batch editing" making all same screen & file size... 3024x4032 3.63 MB size is only part of it. Or Pic's was "raw" right from whatever device then @ lest seems lost EXIF/IPTC Data often carries location, phone # & more info. (Hidden Data in JPG/JPEG & some other formats. Some to all fields Does show as Details in Windows File Properties & other unities.)
640X480 won't help a lot or not @ all depending in the pic. 1920x1080 is still to big even on "wide screen" displays because many don't have the browser running full screen. PFF auto zoom may help but you don't need a big pic here. Auto zoom also have issues w/ pic w/ text zooming big pictures a lot.
Example of what I often do... & before other editing as needed. First "EM5hbYF.jpg" reduce to 20% is 605x806 78.8 KB. (Most batch editors can to this.)
Then Can crop many pic's to lower the vertical so don't have scroll down even when pic file size is reduced. (most times I crop V & H to focus on detail(s) only.)
Crop same to ~ 50% vertical... 605x400 42.1 KB. (Batch editors may not handle this because crop section isn't same area for all affected.)
Still give you plenty to see but less to scroll thru many pic.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
This was an interesting thread showing internals of lock cylinder. And funny too. Good read....or was.
I thought about doing the same thing. My key is so worn out that a copied key will not work for my ignition. I only called one locksmith which was a local well known place and they will only go back to like the mid 90s. But I have to have more than just one working key. Not sure why the copied key won't work even though it looks like it would work on a side by side comparison.
Jason88Notchie: My key is so worn out that a copied key will not work for my ignition. I only called one locksmith which was a local well known place and they will only go back to like the mid 90s. Any suggestions?
As a first owner, I have the Fiero key codes so getting 'brand-new' keys is easier and better than coping a used key.
Perhaps Some PFF Threads on the Subject Will Help:
Originally posted by Jason88Notchie: I thought about doing the same thing. My key is so worn out that a copied key will not work for my ignition. I only called one locksmith which was a local well known place and they will only go back to like the mid 90s. But I have to have more than just one working key. Not sure why the copied key won't work even though it looks like it would work on a side by side comparison.
Any suggestions?
With key copies or new keys made to fit key codes may not help as the Lock is "worn out" too.
I mean everything in there wears out & doesn't work right if your lucky. Example: The Warding that fits the sides of key is often badly worn so way easier to near anything inside to "pick" it. Tumblers & core wears too.
I've seen keys that fall out while driving & more problems even when find good spare or copies or new keys because lock is so worn out. Think bad for old personal cars but Commercial vehicles can wear out the locks in just 5-10 years. Now "everyone" wants "smart keys" means major cost to replace a lock & keys.
For many is "best" just to replace the lock w/ new keys that came with. Can DIY this but need some special tools to pull S-wheel & locking plate that prevents turn S-wheel w/ I-key off/out.
Note: Ignore the key warning chime often fails to work as "sign" of a "bad lock" etc... Often they fail even w/ new lock & contact put in the column w/o carefully messing w/ the contact.
I agree that the image icons are a nuisance and unnecessary,
It's there mainly for mobile users. It doesn't block you from uploading huge images, but when the image gets over a certain size, it offers mobile users a choice if they want to load the pictures or not. Not everybody has unlimited data on their mobile phone.
I could probably change it so only mobile users get to see that placeholder.
theogre: With key copies or new keys made to fit key codes may not help as the Lock is "worn out" too.
In my experience, often the key can be "worn out" more than the lock...
As An Example: On a different vehicle, the door key didn't open the lock. Using the door lock code, a locksmith cut keys that match the lock’s specifications which worked perfectly.
SO, to me (my opinion) start by getting a "good" key first to see if the lock really needed be replaced............
Originally posted by ericjon262: nevermind, big pictures scary.
Isn't "scary" but big files result in that icon does cause problems besides people reading the post. Example: Just see the icon on many phones & tablets is hard enough then trying to touch so many every time you open this page. Saving & printing have to "click" each icon too. Even then often fails to save or print them w/o added steps.
I save the post in the browser but that didn't save the pic's so have to save them separate then use one as Example above to repost.
Just batch edit them under 20-30% solves most of issues w/o much effort. Issues like... ● Many still use Modems or slow DSL that crawls to display big pic. Fiber & Cable does not cover huge areas of the US & other countries. Starlink & other sat service often don't work as advertise. ● Many in U.S. don't have unlimited data for cell networks... Other have "unlimited" plans can still get throttled over whatever limit. (see the contract.) 12 x ~ 3.63 = 41.8 MB can put many people over that limit then cost money &/or data speed crawls until next days to end of billing cycle. Worse are many MVNO (Every Cell Provider Not name AT&T, T-mobile or Verizon) have way less data before you get a bigger bill. Is Why I keep Cell Data Off 99% of time. ● for all the Hype above "5G" most areas only still have "4G"/LTE towers & speed often crawls if can get data at all. Only near/in many cities have full 5G towers & only a very small fraction of that get "5G Ultra Wideband" using "mmWave" radio band that block by almost everything. (Worse the 5GHz or 6GHz WiFi.) ● If you use the Upload media here, repost w/ same names reduces Server Bandwidth & storage. In most cases, Server Bandwidth Cost per X amount of MB GB even now. Server Storage still cost too. Way more then HD/SSD/Flash in all your own devices.
These & more is why I edit most pic's posted here & everywhere else. Example: I "burned" a few hours for setup, taking & editing Pic's in Oil Pressure Sender Internals https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/147753.html But can Batch Edit all your pics in < 5-10 minutes. Crop some takes a bit longer.
Worse, you didn't use Upload Media button but imgur.com & many 3rd party host have a long history of breaking links or just shutting down w/ little or no warning. My guess you haven't read the ToS etc there as now have "rights" to anything they want & @ anytime under Intellectual Property section. IOW Same BS that Adobe is now trying to use against users. The only "good" thing done by imgur was to remove EXIF/IPTC Data from your phone or whatever. Many other hosts don't do this then wonder why have problems w/ Cops Employers etc seeing a pic/video @ x time @ y location...
1920x1080 is still to big even on "wide screen" displays because many don't have the browser running full screen.
Ogre, you may know a thing or two about Fieros... but you are absolutely incorrect about an image size of 1920x1080 being "too big" to display properly in this forum. And it doesn't matter what size screen is being used and/or if "the browser running full screen". The following image is 1920x1080... plus it's only 314 KB, due to being re-compressed. I highly doubt there's anyone out there who can't see the whole image just fine.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
It's there mainly for mobile users.
Cliff, just for clarification... my comment about the image icons being "a nuisance and unnecessary" was directed towards anyone posting humungous images. (It was not a criticism of how the forum software handles extra large image file sizes, in case that's what you might've thought I meant.) I use a free image editing program called Irfanview to resize my images. It includes batch re-sizing. Works great!
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262:
nevermind, big pictures scary.
Well, it was a good post.
When faced with a barrage of image icons (instead of actual images) which all need to be clicked on to see, a lot of people will simply move on to a thread where the images are in plain view.
I only wished for more people to be able to see your images and to read your interesting post.
Originally posted by Patrick: I agree that the image icons are a nuisance and unnecessary.
Wrong for same reasons listed just above & not just for mobile users as Cliff states.
Plus Many w/ Cable or Fiber are still Data Capped too. Example: I'm not sure how much is limit per month on most Xfinity Plans. Was 1TB recently in my Market but you be surprise how many hit that limit then get charge for overage. Even 2 people w/ 1 working @ home a few days a month can push that limit. Verizon in this market only has "unlimited" fiber only because can't sell it in 10+ years to recover the cost to install including after killing Copper phone lines. Many simple cancel the POTs lines instead of "upgrading" to Verizon fios VoIP that Doesn't work when local power is out. (Unless you pay More for approved battery backup that only last a few hours each time. Even then often doesn't work.)
Wrong for same reasons listed just above & not just for mobile users as Cliff states.
Plus Many w/ Cable or Fiber are still Data Capped too.
Do you not understand my posts?
I've stated that the image icons are "a nuisance and unnecessary" because anyone/everyone posting images should be reducing huge image file sizes by using a program such as Irfanview or whatever photo utility they prefer... thus rendering the image icons unnecessary and no longer a nuisance. I don't know how else this needs to be stated.
I've made a small change to the forum style sheet so that it automatically sizes the image down a bit when it gets too large.
Well, let's see what it does to a 3000x1509 image, with a file size of 5.2 MB.
[EDIT] Not bad. The presented image has now been automatically re-sized by the forum (using Power Toys) to 1920x966, with a file size of only 215 KB. That's quite a reduction in file size... almost 25x smaller! Full screen, on a 24" monitor with a resolution of 1920x1080, there's barely any difference in image quality with the original. I give it a thumbs up.
Cliff, the only other suggestion I might make... is that the forum software not automatically enlarge small lo-res images. Often they're meant to be viewed as small images, and they look awful (very pixelated) when enlarged.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-23-2024).]
Originally posted by Patrick: Ogre, you may know a thing or two about Fieros... but you are absolutely incorrect about an image size of 1920x1080 being "too big" to display properly in this forum. And it doesn't matter what size screen is being used and/or if "the browser running full screen". The following image is 1920x1080... plus it's only 314 KB, due to being re-compressed. I highly doubt there's anyone out there who can't see the whole image just fine.
Please...
Between camera etc can't handle the contrast, multiple compression passes & browser auto zoom all I see black & light blobs, tree/pole tops and sky when have the browser in a normal window. That on two completely different monitors w/ 1 set brighter then other on purpose. Have to go full screen to see any details even then looses most of that. Then view full screen, has so many compression & other artifacts is hard to ignore. View on tablet or phone it even worse between browser zoom to fit & hardware issues even on most of them when try to re-zoom to see just a part of that.
Again, can post a big picture but often useless, meaningless or worse after auto zoom is active.
Fact: Jpg & worse any Zoom often makes images w/ text unreadable or fine details completely lost. Way worse as most people use smallest jpg that make text etc hard to near impossible to read/see before added zoom and other post processing. That's ignoring Most consumer cameras Default to middle or low quality JPG just to save Flash Media for more pictures per MB &/or to save bandwidth @ many level even if you have an "Unlimited" connection to the "cloud." "New" webp & avif often have same issues because most want max compression but many fanboys claim both are better then JPG? Not for many jobs. GIF and uncompressed PNG have way less of a problem w/ that until way small but even then often readable like: Is Why most of FSM etc clips I've posted are Edited GIF & often beat JPG size yet still be readable at most sizes even after browser auto zoom.
Either edited pictures above shows a lot of data even for small windows or other devices w/o zooming @ all for many devices, or can rezoom on phones so easy to see w/o effort or sucking major cell data eating money for many users.
Please... Between camera etc can't handle the contrast, multiple compression passes & browser auto zoom all I see black & light blobs, tree/pole tops and sky when have the browser in a normal window.
That's all you're supposed to see in that particular image! I just selected a 1920x1080 image (yes, purposely different lighting than usual) to demonstrate that there is no problem with any resolution monitor and/or phone screen being able to display an image of those dimensions in this forum. Quit changing the goal posts!
quote
Originally posted by theogre:
1920x1080 is still to big even on "wide screen" displays because many don't have the browser running full screen.
Anyway, it's all become a moot point as Cliff's addition of Power Toys appears to have now eliminated the problem of huge file size images being uploaded. Thank-you, Cliff!
[EDIT] That's hilarious. I'm simply trying to use discussion and examples to help make posting images easier here for everyone... and I now see my rating indicator drifting into the red. If you don't like what I'm posting for some reason, say something... instead of using a coward's way to anonymously express yourself.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-24-2024).]
Originally posted by Patrick: Do you not understand my posts?
I've stated that the image icons are "a nuisance and unnecessary" because anyone/everyone posting images should be reducing huge image file sizes by using a program such as Irfanview or whatever photo utility they prefer... thus rendering the image icons unnecessary and no longer a nuisance. I don't know how else this needs to be stated.
You Don't Understand that Most Users Simply Won't Use Irfanview or any other tools to post any images. This is not new & has been a problem for 20+ years here alone & only gotten worse w/ phone & tablet users.
ericjon262 & others very likely post pic & more direct from cell phones/Tablets often using imgur et al. Most Phones & tablets make it hard to edit pic's beyond quick "trick" & filters. Even If a host has tools to edit, most won't bother most of times. Many Will Not send them from phones to PC/Mac to edit that's assume they even have a computer to run Irfanview or anything else. There's a reason why PC Sales have been so low for so long because many simply don't buy them now. Even many Business Buyers don't buy systems for each desk because many big companies use thin/cloud clients to the desk. My work stopped buying/leasing PC's 10+ years ago for most desks. Just local means don't buy ~ 4000 PC every few years.
Is a time eater at best just to resize & crop pictures on a PC w/ large screen for just for the OP sender page. Then add more time to enter text etc. @ last can now UL as PNG to make it easier to read even after auto zoom happens.
Cliff can edit the site to try to "fix" this but edits often cause other problems like even allowing big files then hind w/ icons because of problems above... Mobile does not = to phones. Tablets & even most Laptops have smaller screens, on Metered Connection, smaller HD/SSD, & more require to limit pic &/or file size. I don't want my Laptop DL Multi MB images in metered or slow I-net connection. Has 250GB SSD but you never want SSD to get full because how "Free space" on SSD is actually used & no free space then the drive can slow way down & even wear out section of flash faster.
You Don't Understand that Most Users Simply Won't Use Irfanview or any other tools to post any images.
Oh come on, get serious. You don't think I realize that some people simply can't be bothered? Of course I "understand" that. I've occasionally mentioned programs such as Irfanview over the years for those that do wish to be bothered to edit/re-size/re-compress their images.
quote
Originally posted by theogre:
Cliff can edit the site to try to "fix" this but edits often cause other problems...
What's the solution then... perhaps prohibiting the posting of images? This is getting silly. Let's see how the addition of Power Toys works out before the idea is crucified.
now I remember why I don't post over here often...
Me: posts technical information and pictures that could be helpful to someone
PFF: OMG THE PICTURES WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU.
I won't be reposting the information, it's not worth my time, and I'll go ahead and turn notifications off for this thread, since it's been trashed to hell and back anyways. y'all have fun arguing about picture sizes.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
I invited Lou Dias to trash me in my own thread, he refused. sorry. if he trashes your thread going after me. I tried.
When faced with a barrage of image icons (instead of actual images) which all need to be clicked on to see, a lot of people will simply move on to a thread where the images are in plain view.
I only wished for more people to be able to see your images and to read your interesting post.
Cliff, the only other suggestion I might make... is that the forum software not automatically enlarge small lo-res images. Often they're meant to be viewed as small images, and they look awful (very pixelated) when enlarged.
Anyway, it's all become a moot point as Cliff's addition of Power Toys appears to have now eliminated the problem of huge file size images being uploaded.
Wait, Power Toys is a utility you can install on your Windows PC. It allows you to resize an image on your end. It's not something I installed on the server. What you are seeing is re-compression by the server. Images uploaded to the server (through the "Upload Media" button) are recompressed. But it has always done that. That's not new. What I've changed is the way the browser displays images. It now has a maximum width of 1800 pixels, or the entire width of your browser window - whichever is smallest.
now I remember why I don't post over here often...
"Here" as in "in TD&Q" or here as in PFF?
Also, you are the one who caused the whole picture size discussion. Someone just mentions your images are too big which resulted in your images being replaced by placeholders by the forum software and made suggestions how to make them smaller, and you react by removing your entire post and replace it with "nevermind, big pictures scary". Even though people gave you actual answers to your question. You left nothing to discuss except picture size. So not sure what/who it is you are complaining about.
You could have responded with "thank you for your suggestions" (on both the image size thing and the actual responses to your questions), yet you chose to delete your entire post and even add your "why am I even posting here" remark.
Unless something has been changed within the last day... yes, embedded small images have been enlarged somewhat when viewed in a PFF post. I'll see if I can find and/or re-create this issue. (Of course, if something has been altered recently with the forum software, I won't be able to demonstrate this.) [EDIT] I haven't been able to re-create it. Either I was wrong (possible!), or something has changed with the forum. Anyway, it's certainly nothing critical.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
What I've changed is the way the browser displays images. It now has a maximum width of 1800 pixels, or the entire width of your browser window - whichever is smallest.
And that's fine, but...
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
What you are seeing is re-compression by the server. Images uploaded to the server (through the "Upload Media" button) are recompressed. But it has always done that.
Wait wait wait... something isn't making sense here. If that was indeed the case, why were the huge images originally uploaded to the opening post replaced by icons... and when they were clicked on and opened, and then downloaded, they were still the original huge size. (It's unfortunate they're not still available to demonstrate that.) That's the way it's been here for quite awhile. Yet, when you mentioned Power Toys, and did whatever you did... I tested it out Here, and a 5200 KB 3000x1509 image was automatically converted to a 314 KB 1920x966 image. The forum software is definitely doing something it wasn't doing prior to your mention of Power Toys (whether or not Power Toys has anything to do with it).
Okay, let's try something. I've looked through my image folders to try and find an image size similar to what had been uploaded to the opening post. It's a 6843 KB (6.8 MB) 3088x4128 image. After it's been uploaded, I'll return to this post to see what the forum software has done with it.
[EDIT] Okay, as I suspected... no icon, and the image has automatically been re-sized and re-compressed by something new in the forum software. When this image is now downloaded from PFF, it's only 447 KB with a size of 1920x2567. It appears the forum software is now reducing image width to a maximum of 1920, whereas the height can still be quite a bit larger than 1080. There's also a much greater degree of compression taking place. This is something that wasn't being done previously. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, not at all... but it's certainly different forum behavior.
Now Cliff, if you could somehow prevent the forum from corrupting the image URL when people upload multiple images without hitting the Enter key between uploads, that would just be peachy. Basically, if more than two or three images are uploaded consecutively in this manner, one of the image URLs will eventually have a gap inserted into it, thus corrupting it. It happens on a very regular basis here. I've tried over and over to explain this to people when I see it happen, but rarely does anyone bother to go back and fix it. A recent example is mentioned Here. Not only did the person not bother fixing his opening post, but he went on to post again in the same thread in the same manner. And yes, another corrupted image URL.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-24-2024).]
Patrick: It happens on a very regular basis here. I've tried over and over to explain this to people when I see it happen, but rarely does anyone bother to go back and fix it.
I can understand why someone new here might initially have a problem with missing images/corrupted URLs in their posts, but when the problem and easy solution is carefully explained to them, and they keep doing it... well yeah, you've got to wonder.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-24-2024).]
Nothing has changed on my end in the forum software. The only thing that has changed is the maximum display width. But that's a browser instruction. It leaves the original image alone, it doesn't physically resize it. And in fact I only changed a value because there has always been a max display width.
Also, small images were never enlarged so I'm not sure where or why you have seen that. If you have seen it, it was a setting on your end in your browser perhaps.
When uploading an image through the "Media Upload" button, images are always recompressed but not reformatted (so its height and width remains the same). This has always been the case, even with PIP. If an image is still 6MB after recompression, it means the original was even bigger still. And yes, some images will recompress to maybe 1/20th their original size, while others will recompress to close their original size. That's just how JPG works.
So in short, nothing has changed in the way the forum handles images except that it tells your browser to never show the image wider than 1800px - but again, that doesn't make any changes to the original image (you can test that by right clicking on the image, and choose "display image in new tab/window").
Nothing has changed on my end in the forum software. The only thing that has changed is the maximum display width. But that's a browser instruction. It leaves the original image alone, it doesn't physically resize it.
So in short, nothing has changed in the way the forum handles images except that it tells your browser to never show the image wider than 1800px - but again, that doesn't make any changes to the original image (you can test that by right clicking on the image, and choose "display image in new tab/window").
Cliff, when I do exactly what you've suggested I try... the results are exactly what I've previously reported. I right click on my image in This post, I select "Open image in new tab"... and in the new tab, it states the image dimensions to be 1920x2567. When I then right click the image and select "Save image as", it downloads a 447 KB image. Keep in mind, this uploaded image was originally 6843 KB with dimensions of 3088x4128... just as I earlier reported.
The forum does indeed appear to be resizing uploaded images. In my example above, my image has been resized from 3088x4128 to 1920x2567.
I don't understand how you're seeing something completely different. I'm doing all this on a Windows 10 PC using the Google Chrome browser.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-25-2024).]
Wait, two things: First, you are correct, and second I didn't read your post right. 😁
Yes, images larger than 1920px wide are indeed sized down to 1920px wide. So I was wrong about that. This is something I had changed quite some time ago. Not sure exactly when but at least two years ago (since the module I wrote for that carries a file date in 2022).
That also means that nothing has changed in the handling of images in at least the last two years.
Wait wait wait... something isn't making sense here. If that was indeed the case, why were the huge images originally uploaded to the opening post replaced by icons... and when they were clicked on and opened, and then downloaded, they were still the original huge size. (It's unfortunate they're not still available to demonstrate that.)
Is that possibly due to those images perhaps being hosted somewhere other than the PFF server, and then being linked to from there in the opening post? Would those images be treated differently by the forum software in that situation... ie displaying icons instead of images?
[EDIT] Alright, I answered my own question. The first image below is linked directly to the website it originally appears on. The forum software has not altered it in any manner. It has not been resized (from 2560x1440), and the file size remains the same (737 KB). I'll make the assumption that if the image file size had been larger than 2 MB, that the image would've been represented by an icon here instead of by the image itself (as had occurred in the opening post). The second image was downloaded to my PC, and then uploaded to the PFF server. It has been automatically resized (to 1920x1080) by the forum software, and the file size has also therefore become smaller (now 284 KB). And to be clear, everything I've stated about these two images has nothing to do with how they're displayed here. As Cliff has stated, the maximum display width is now 1800 pixels.
Okay, let's see some ignition lock cylinder innards!
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-25-2024).]
I just selected a 1920x1080 image (yes, purposely different lighting than usual) to demonstrate that there is no problem with any resolution monitor and/or phone screen being able to display an image of those dimensions in this forum. Quit changing the goal posts! 
This is getting silly. Let's see how the addition of Power Toys works out before the idea is crucified.
You do not want to see the inside!
