Images



  • My imported pics from Opera look pretty good but the new ones uploaded to Vivaldi have downsized with some loss of quality. Also there is no opportunity to view them large by clicking on them. Would be better just putting in the Flickr link? Dave



  • Upon joining Vivaldi, I uploaded an image for my Profile Cover pic and immediately noticed that it wasn't displaying with the quality with which I created it.

    I inquired about this and was informed that that loss of quality is because Vivaldi is using Image Compression.

    I don't like that one bit, but that is what's going on. I sure hope Vivaldi changes their mind on this Image Compression direction and just let's the images display in the quality that the image that was uploaded has.

    Otherwise that'll be a step down from MyOpera. If and when we get the capability to customize our Blogs with CSS Code, I'm not going to like the idea of a watered-down Blog Design. It'll look like I'm looking at it through dirty Glasses and / or with a Glasses prescription that needs updating.



  • COuld be bad for me as a wildlife photographer , quality is important. You can't view pics in a larger size either. Also it doesn't seem to accept Flickr BB code as Opera did so that's another option gone.



  • It's probably a matter of expense. Larger images require more space and more space is more money.



  • I don't do a lot of photography, but way back when dialup was the only
    game around, I got in the habit of resizing and resampling almost any
    image to upload to an online service. What may be an option for those
    of us that do a great amount of photography is to upload maybe a small
    low resolution image here, with a link to the original hosted at a site
    geared towards photography, until if/when Vivaldi changes the compression
    used for image handling. Just an idea…yeah, I know...if you wanted
    my ideas you'd beat it out of me, hehe! ;)



  • I care more about the meta data that is in the image. As it is now, all meta data like EXIF, IPTC, XMP is stripped, which is not good. If I upload an image for display here, I want that others know how I made it and occasionally that I claim the copyright for it and do not allow others to publish it without my permission. I consider stripping meta data as harmful, there are methods to compress the images if they really need to do so, but keeping the meta data.

    One example:
    https://vivaldi.net/community/photos/item/4846-baum-im-winter/quhno
    Click on "View Original" and look if you can find any meta data. Short answer: You can't - so it is not the original image.
    Even worse: The image is of lesser quality and of bigger size in bytes than it was before the "compression".

    I did not test with newer uploads, I am waiting for an official announcement that it is fixed.



  • I actually still use Dial Up.
    My Blog isn't image-based. But, on the very rare occasions when I do incorporate images into a post here and there, I definitely do resize / resample so as to squeeze out every possible KByte while maintaining good quality.

    For example, my approach on MyOpera was that as far as I recall having deduced, the available displaying area in the posts was only 620px wide. Therefore any images that I incorporated into posts were resized to 620px width. Plus, I made sure to explore saving them at the lowest JPEG Save Quality Level that wouldn't compromise Good Quality.

    The way I saw it, any image wider than 620px would just be adding needless KBytes, additional loading time and extra physical size that wouldn't actually even be used.

    Well, that was MY way of doing things. Not that everyone would agree with it.



  • A lot of people just used images at the full blown GIANT file size footprint at which they found them on the Internet. I remember one girl whose Header image alone had a file size slightly over 3 MegaBytes! Wooooooo!

    Heck, if I recall correctly, one member had an AVATAR with a file size of right around there … 3 MegaBytes! It's that it was a full fize GIF with who knows how many frames.



  • I can understand restricting file sizes but not jpeg resolution. My images are less than 1mb but will fill a standard screen at a reasonable quality. What I've got now is these images scaled down to what is little more than a large low res thumbnail which cannot be viewed any larger. Also I can't even put in the BB code to FLickr so pretty much useless for me. I will have to stick to the more artistic orientated Wordpress.



  • Hm… at least I could upload a full HD sized image to my album:

    ↑ click image to enlarge ↑

    I embedded it here like this:

    [url] [img]https://vivaldi.net/media/com_easysocial/photos/2616/16767/bd9d3370433ee6230d78c79dad9ce0fc_original.jpg[/img] [/url]
    
    ```I would embed it in the blog like this:
    

    wild, wild boar

    Bigger sizes should be possible too. if you use the album or if you attach it and use the custom size and select original then it will be only css resized, but if the user opens the image alone he will see it in full size.
    
    In the albums there is a "View Original" button at the top right above the image which does the same as the code i posted here.
    
    Not ideal, but better than nothing.
    … but I too hope that at some time there will be a lightbox ....

  • Vivaldi Team

    Hi everyone,

    We changed the image compression setting. It should now show high res picture.
    Please let us know how that's working for you. You may have to clear the cache to test.

    Cheers!
    Tatsuki


  • Vivaldi Translator

    This re-compression in blogs is common, and unfortunately even Wordpress does it.
    I have access to a paid version of Wordpress, and have tried editing via FTP.
    Warning Wordpress does what it wants anyway, and will trash your changes.

    Anyway, from looking under the bonnet/hood you can see the images have been remade in several sizes to fit the templates.
    Depending on the device or browser you use, you will see different versions of the images.

    On the one hand this is convenient, but I have found that the automatic systems used by web-sites are no match for my own optimisation.
    eg. the uploaded images always get bigger, so we both loose-out.
    Unless your site picture compressor is as good as RIOT forget it.
    http://luci.criosweb.ro/riot/
    Give us a list of the sizes the system wants, and we can make our own. We can then keep our tags and use less space on your server, so we all win.

    The tag-stripping concerns me, and is bad-news.
    You need to look for a way of using the tag info, rather than ditch it.
    Some of us add keywords and other standard info to the JPG tags.
    This could be used during import, to populate the tags in the albums.



  • @Dr.Flay:

    Give us a list of the sizes the system wants, and we can make our own. We can then keep our tags and use less space on your server, so we all win.

    +1
    … or only recompress images that do not fit to the preferred sizes - but:.

    @Dr.Flay:

    The tag-stripping concerns me, and is bad-news.
    You need to look for a way of using the tag info, rather than ditch it.
    Some of us add keywords and other standard info to the JPG tags.
    This could be used during import, to populate the tags in the albums.

    +1

    I want the people to see the IPTC info and parts of the EXIF info too, that's why I add the IPTC info or why I leave the EXIF info in.

    Yes, I can understand that recomression kills 2 flies at once - and one of them is making sure that the image is really an image and nothing is hidden in the file, but could you please at least add the meta info again after compression or display them somewhere?
    The compressor can read the info partially, I have seen it naming one of my images according to the name in the IPTC info, so it seems to be possible…



  • Yes, Dr.Flay!
    Dobble
    +1
    +1


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.