Service outage prompts big changes

[Admin]

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]

Try using the "inline" feature after uploading your attachments.

Yes, I had noticed that. 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.

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.

[Admin]

I'll look into that, too. Are you certain that the images requiring downloading were under 110 KB?

[Patrick]

I'll look into that, too. Are you certain that the images requiring downloading were under 110 KB?

YES.

edit: I just look at it again. Notice know the pics info (file name and size or not) is different? However they were all loaded the same way.

[J.Spin]

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.

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.

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

[Admin]

I'll look into that, too. Are you certain that the images requiring downloading were under 110 KB?

YES.

edit: I just look at it again. Notice know the pics info (file name and size or not) is different? However they were all loaded the same way.

Both problems are now solved -- linking and scrollbars -- for any image up to 640x480, portrait or landscape.

[Admin]

Ahh, that might be related to what is going on then.

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: Select all

[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 ).

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.

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.

[Admin]

I've removed the FLV BBcode for its purpose may be misleading to many users.

Another project on my to-do list is to implement a phpBB modification which allows Google Video, YouTube, etc. to be displayed within posts.

This is now done:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6916

[Patrick]

Thanks Marc,



I just fixed part of my Chilean TR started last Fall. Youtube are back on plus I've put a few pics in the text as had envisioned it.

I'll revisit some other of the Youtube links I've put in the few months in other topics.

[riverc0il]

Not sure if this is a known issue or not but the search function is broken. Here is an example:

The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: killington.
You must specify at least one word to search for. Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.

[Admin]

Not sure if this is a known issue or not but the search function is broken. Here is an example:

The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: killington.
You must specify at least one word to search for. Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.

Aw, crap. I'll work on it.

[Admin]

Not sure if this is a known issue or not but the search function is broken. Here is an example:

The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: killington.
You must specify at least one word to search for. Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.

Aw, crap. I'll work on it.

Fixed.

[EMSC]

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.

[Admin]

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.

I've just bumped it up to 12.

[J.Spin]

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