|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Byte Size? (Read 347 times)
|
Thomas T
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 2
|
 |
Byte Size?
« on: Monday 28 September 09 20:59 UTC (UK) » |
|
I have been a totally inactive member of this site, but thought it was time to educate myself re some points of detail about how things work here. Hope this is a good board for image attachment expertise! Apologies in advance if either of these issues is covered somewhere in the how-to threads, but a Google site search did not show me anything truly on-topic.
Q1 Does the 500 KB file size limit on postings extend beyond the public boards and also apply to images exchanged privately as attachments to PMs? I would guess so -- but ordinarily the word "post" sounds limited to messages that are public. (I am aware that this is a merely hypothetical question until I have three public posts to my name.)
Q2 I have a file described by my computer as "500 KB (512,000 bytes)". I think that in anorak-speak the first is a size expressed in binary KB and the second is in "proper" bytes (2 to the power of 9). A bit out of my depth here, but my understanding is that the higher figure is the true number of bytes, while the other is just a convenient shorthand for the same true size -- i.e. the software is showing two different yardsticks, but the underlying size described is the same. I believe that kilo-anythings should strictly mean exactly 1,000 of them, following the decimal system; but in consumer IT, "KB" is generally used in a binary way, to mean 1,024 bytes (2 to the power of 10), rather than in its strict decimal sense.
Anyway, all dull theory aside, what I am after is the practical RootsChat result: is the attachment limit really 512,000 bytes, with the consequence that the above file would be permitted? Or is the site not following the conventional rough binary shorthand, but using the decimal measuring rod in its pure and literal form, "500,000 bytes" -- with the corollary that my file would be rejected?
Thanks in advance!
TT
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gadget
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 24474
Holy Island - Pilgrims' Path
|
Hi Thomas
Welcome to becoming active 
Q1 Does the 500 KB file size limit on postings extend beyond the public boards and also apply to images exchanged privately as attachments to PMs? I would guess so -- but ordinarily the word "post" sounds limited to messages that are public. (I am aware that this is a merely hypothetical question until I have three public posts to my name.)
You can't attach images in the ordinary way to PMs on this forum. You have to put them into Imageshack or Photbucket or similar sites and attach them as links to those sites. This would mean that the 500kb limit would not apply.
Q2 I have a file described by my computer as "500 KB (512,000 bytes)". I think that in anorak-speak the first is a size expressed in binary KB and the second is in "proper" bytes (2 to the power of 9). A bit out of my depth here, but my understanding is that the higher figure is the true number of bytes, while the other is just a convenient shorthand for the same true size -- i.e. the software is showing two different yardsticks, but the underlying size described is the same. I believe that kilo-anythings should strictly mean exactly 1,000 of them, following the decimal system; but in consumer IT, "KB" is generally used in a binary way, to mean 1,024 bytes (2 to the power of 10), rather than in its strict decimal sense.
I've always managed to attach up to near the 500kb (nominal) limit. I'm not sure if the site uses the binary kb limit. You could try attaching to test it out or Trystan or Berlin Bob would know.
Regards
Gadget
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
xinia
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1785
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
|
Re: Byte Size?
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 29 September 09 05:21 UTC (UK) » |
|
all to techiiii for me
xin  
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gadget
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 24474
Holy Island - Pilgrims' Path
|
|
Re: Byte Size?
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 29 September 09 06:59 UTC (UK) » |
|
Hi again Thomas
In relation to part one of your question, I have put up images that have been uploaded to another site on the photo and other boards, in addition to in PMs. See for example:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,408357.msg2760769.html#msg2760769
(although, for some reason, the previous one isn't showing at the moment, so I'll have to do something about it!)
With regard to whether the limit is 500,000 bytes or 512,000 bytes, as I said, it might be worth you trying to put one up and see. If it's too big, the system will soon tell you and, in that case, you can uploaded it to another site and link it on here (either by using the img tags or by linking to the url). I don't think that many of us are too worried about the extra 12,000 bytes. There are always ways around these things
Regards
Gadget
PS - Xin - not really technical, it's just the way computers 'count' - 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc. You might recognise these figures from reading about the memory in your machine
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick29
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2904
|
|
Re: Byte Size?
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 29 September 09 09:02 UTC (UK) » |
|
Hi Gadget -- and thank you for the "Welcome"! Your reply is most helpful. It sorts out Q1 immediately. And I suppose that the Q1 answer could also be a way round any difficulties in connection with Q2 -- unless, that is, the objective is to seek help with a photo restoration, when it seems that the image itself (?) needs to be visible on RootsChat. I thought that it would be best to go as close to the limit as possible. Because of the importance of DPI for that sort of work I reckoned that some one on the Restoration board might have already had cause to experiment and see how far they could push the file size cap. But seems as though the moderator reckoned my enquiry was too techie to stay in the place I picked. Oh well... Trystan or Berlin Bob would know. Perhaps Trystan or Berlin Bob will see your post and let us have the "official" answer? I don't think I can PM them myself yet. Thanks again for your post. Regards, TT
TT, your best bet would be to post a jpg image to the public board, and if the wonderful people who do the restoration feel that they can do more, then they will arrange for you to email them an uncompressed bitmap file (.BMP). I did this a few months back, and was able to send one of the restorers a 12MB .BMP image, which she coloured and restored for me, to a professional standard. We are very lucky to have these very talented people on our forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Best Wishes, Nick. Research interests: Field - Luton & Islington Hole - Somerset, Suffolk & Surrey Farnish, Parker, Cattermole, Last, Wasp, Church - Suffolk Lewin/Lowin/Lowen - Hertfordhire Martin - Eltham & Greenwich, Kent (London) Stead - Greenwich, London (Kent) & Maidstone Wood - Hertfordshire Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
Scottiedog
RootsChat Member
Posts: 232
Great Uncle George (RNCVR WWI)
|
Thomas
Just to calrify your 500KB question - I think you've answered it for yourself really!
1KB=1024Bytes so 500KB=512,000Bytes
so they are both exactly the same.
This isn't just consumer IT it's "real" IT too. The only time it doesn't work is with disk manufacturers who, for reasons I can only think of as marketing speak, seem to think a GB is 1000MB instead of 1024MB which everybody uses. Go figure.
Les
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scott (Dublin, Merseyside)
Booth,Houlden,Jarvis,Kenyon,Paver,Wigglesworth (Yorkshire)
Attwater,Crawshaw,Houlden,Lord,Lowe (Lancashire)
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
