Service outage prompts big changes
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Patrick":2vpri83h said:
I think that I've solved the image scroll bar issue going forward, but on old posts I don't think that I've been able to solve that. In any event, simply clicking on the image will remove the scroll bar by displaying the full image.
And yes, the 640x480 limitation has been left in place.
J.Spin
New member
I tried the new "flv" option that came with the forum changes and added a flash version of a video to my latest report, but I haven't been able to get it to play on any computer I've tried. It appears to download, indicates the length of the video (1:11) but then nothing happens when I click on either the play button in the middle of the movie screen or in the play button on the bar below the movie. It just seems to change the bar to display "100%" at the end. The flash video works fine if I open it in Real Player, so the movie itself doesn't seem to be the problem. Is this an issue that others are experiencing with the forums, or is there something that I need to download to get this functionality to work? I've added the movie to this message again using the "flv" button for reference.
-J
[flv]http://www.JandEproductions.com/2008/26JAN08.flv[/flv]
-J
[flv]http://www.JandEproductions.com/2008/26JAN08.flv[/flv]
Jay, I noticed that and put it on my "to do" list. I'm familiar with the SWF you used as I use it myself, and one thing it requires is that the SWF is on the same domain as the FLV file. Is that the case here? I ask because in testing I took one of my March videos that was previously embedded with HTML using the same SWF player and it works fine.
Patrick
Well-known member
Yes, I had noticed that. :mrgreen: However there is something funny happening, notice what I posted last night? One or a few of the pics aren't seen and you have to download it. Noticed the same thing in the link from an Lucky's old TR that I linked up in Harvey's thread this morning. What's happening? This seems to be random? What's up with that and is there a way to prevent it.Admin":yloc0v6n said:
It makes reading a TR really annoying when you cannot see all the pics and you have to click to see them...already some people might be annoyed by reading my TR without pics or almost one year later. :lol:
J.Spin
New member
Ahh, that might be related to what is going on then. I simply created the flash movie from my usual QuickTime movie, by using the WinFF program that you introduced me to, and then uploaded it to my website at GoDaddy like I do with all my other files. I've got plenty of space on my website if it would help to try placing/installing something there (i.e. some Shockwave Flash stuff), although I suspect that might be something that has to be installed more basally at the level of GoDaddy. I guess another option could be uploading the file to the First Tracks server? I'm just trying to avoid uploading to FT to save you space (and the uploading hassle myself), especially since my space at GoDaddy is expanding way faster than I'll probably ever need even with all my pictures and movies. It is nice that memory is becoming so cheap.Admin":eq83icna said:
On another note, that WinFF program is fantastic. We often have to deal with interconverting video files for various presentations here, and any colleagues that I introduce to WinFF to are loving it.
-J
J.Spin":arg3t7o9 said:
Yup, my suspicions were correct. I couldn't check the source code for my earlier reply as I was driving at the time, but now that I'm in front of a PC I notice that you're calling the SWF file on the SkiMovies.com server (http://www.skimovies.com/videoplayer/mediaplayer.swf) and the FLV file on J&E Productions (http://www.jandeproductions.com/2008/26JAN08.flv). I presume that you did that with the FLV BBCode -- that's a custom BBCode I created to embed SkiMovies.com flicks. What you've done, which calls the SWF file on SkiMovies.com and the FLV file on J&E Productions, won't work due to security restrictions within the SWF file -- the video and the SWF file both need to be on the same server.
There's also a new Flash BBCode. I'm still searching for some thorough documentation but from what I can tell it only works with SWF objects and not FLV files. The best reference I can find is the following:
Code:
[flash]
Inserts a flash movie into your post.
Usage:
[flash=width,height,true,#ffffff]http://url.com/flash.swf[/flash]
Output:
(Inserts http://url.com/flash.swf into the post)IIRC WinFF gives you the option of saving the video as an FLV file or SWF. If not there are plenty of other freeware video converters/transcoders that do provide that option, one of which is Super ( http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html ).
J.Spin":arg3t7o9 said:
Not at all. JW FLV Player, the SWF file I'm using merely needs to be uploaded to the same webspace as your FLV file, then called within the embed code. It's freeware, and you may find the program download and example embed codes at http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player .
Another project on my to-do list is to implement a phpBB modification which allows Google Video, YouTube, etc. to be displayed within posts.
I've removed the FLV BBcode for its purpose may be misleading to many users.
This is now done:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6916
Admin":2pb4hw8t said:
This is now done:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6916
EMSC
Well-known member
Admin,
Pictures: I know the 640*480 limit still exists, and I would assume the 110K size limit too... But are we still limited to 8 pics per post? I was going to make a post in a day or two from this past weekend... and ~10 pics seems to tell the story, but I could cut it to 8 as it's a summer post, not a ski post... Just wondering.
Pictures: I know the 640*480 limit still exists, and I would assume the 110K size limit too... But are we still limited to 8 pics per post? I was going to make a post in a day or two from this past weekend... and ~10 pics seems to tell the story, but I could cut it to 8 as it's a summer post, not a ski post... Just wondering.
J.Spin
New member
I've been noticing over at the TGR forums that there appears to be no limit (or if there is one it is very high) on the picture size/width of linked images posted in the trip reports, such as:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/show ... p?t=124769
and people are able to post some fantastically-detailed high-resolution images, such as the fourth image down in the report I linked above. That image is around 2500 pixels in width, and due to its size there is certainly some added impact. There are some downsides to incorporating these types of images. Obviously that image width messed with the width of the text lines in the report and made it a bit harder to read. In addition, many people's monitors won't be able to display images like that without scrolling, and some people may not like that. So, one has to weight the drawbacks of what large images will do to the readability of their text and the flow of viewing images in the report, but the ability to look around that big image and explore the detail of the scene is very appealing. Like the method I've switched to here on First Tracks, those images are not actually uploaded to the forum server, but served from a different site (in this case the UVM site) so restrictions on file size wouldn't seem to be relevant. Are larger limits on linked images something that is possible with the FT forum setup? I'm loving the fact that linked picture width is now up to 1000 pixels or so on FT (whereas it used to be in the 600-800 pixels range?) but some of my pictures are still downsized and it would be nice to have the option to show larger ones like they do at places such as TGR. As I recall, we also used to be able to click on downsized images in FT reports and have them pop up in a new window at full size, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. With the explosion of people's available server space and increasing quality of images at higher resolutions, I think big pictures are going to become more common with people that like to use them. It seems like a good topic for discussion on the forum. I’m certainly on the side of letting the photographers have the flexibility to independently balance the pros and cons of incorporating larger linked images if that sort of setting is possible with this forum software.
-J
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/show ... p?t=124769
and people are able to post some fantastically-detailed high-resolution images, such as the fourth image down in the report I linked above. That image is around 2500 pixels in width, and due to its size there is certainly some added impact. There are some downsides to incorporating these types of images. Obviously that image width messed with the width of the text lines in the report and made it a bit harder to read. In addition, many people's monitors won't be able to display images like that without scrolling, and some people may not like that. So, one has to weight the drawbacks of what large images will do to the readability of their text and the flow of viewing images in the report, but the ability to look around that big image and explore the detail of the scene is very appealing. Like the method I've switched to here on First Tracks, those images are not actually uploaded to the forum server, but served from a different site (in this case the UVM site) so restrictions on file size wouldn't seem to be relevant. Are larger limits on linked images something that is possible with the FT forum setup? I'm loving the fact that linked picture width is now up to 1000 pixels or so on FT (whereas it used to be in the 600-800 pixels range?) but some of my pictures are still downsized and it would be nice to have the option to show larger ones like they do at places such as TGR. As I recall, we also used to be able to click on downsized images in FT reports and have them pop up in a new window at full size, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. With the explosion of people's available server space and increasing quality of images at higher resolutions, I think big pictures are going to become more common with people that like to use them. It seems like a good topic for discussion on the forum. I’m certainly on the side of letting the photographers have the flexibility to independently balance the pros and cons of incorporating larger linked images if that sort of setting is possible with this forum software.
-J