What is the maximum resolution for images in FireFox, Chrome?

[Guest]

Hi,

I want to embed a picture (res: 16384x16384 (px), 4mb only (that is a world map)), but that does not work.
Either does not happen (FireFox), or browser screams after not enough ram (Chrome).

Image with 8192x8192px (the half) is loaded without problems.
Image Download: http://schwarz-ist-sehr.net:8088/images/map/WORLD_MAP_demo.jpg
I can open this file on the pc without problems.

Test page: http: //black-ist-sehr.net: 8088 / index2.php


Can someone help me please?

[BenPleysier]

Fortunately, my browser says

And it makes me boil just thinking about irresponsible web developers that come up with these excesses.

I try to keep my images to below 100kb, but certainly not above 400kb.

Have a look at using an SVG rather than a JPEG.

[osgood_]

Below 100k thats just plain insane these days........for any website that wants to leave a lasting impression. Am l worried about uses on limited download plans, no way and neither are 99% of all companies producing websites. Those that do are just wasting their time by delivering inane boring content, instantly forgetable.

[Guest]

Nancy O.​

You have your answer?

When I have the answer always decides only me, sorry.

And a file with 16384x16384px can be 4mb => http://schwarz-ist-sehr.net:8088/images/map/WORLD_MAP_demo.rar

You as ACP should know it, and not just say too big, sorry.

...I do not want to insult or attack anyone.

@ Jon Fritz II

Thank you Jon Fritz II
This is the most helpful answer so far (without crazy, too big, do not (I cant hear that anymore)).

I've already thought of this, but have no idea.
Ajax?
These are pictures 2048px, 8x8.

How can I load pictures when move/zooming?

[Jon Fritz]

Something like Unveil might work (jQuery)...

jQuery Unveil - A very lightweight plugin to lazy load images

[BenPleysier]

514KB

59KB - same image with the format set to progressive with 5 scans and set to a lower resolution.

The smaller file size

• enhances user experience - faster loading times
• reduces bandwidth - reduces costs all round
• less storage space - reduces cost for the owner of the site

[osgood_]

That image is relatively small in this day and age of large hero images which may need to fit large screens - so you have already exceeded your 100k UNLESS of course you retsrict the visual impact....as for the first image being 514k at that size, well that's just a daft example.

[BenPleysier]

You are making no sense.

At 800 x 660, why is the image relatively small?

Where did I say that an image had to be limited to 100KB?

Where did we start talking images that need to fit large screens?

Even at 1600 x 660, the image would be 118KB way below my suggested 400KB.

As for the first image being a daft example? It is what it is, no magic performed. The magic was only performed on the second image.

As you have stated,  you don't care about the end user yet, according to all of your other posts, you do care about warning against a so-called 'bloated' Bootstrap framework.

Makes no sense!

Which makes me wonder. Why did you single my post out for criticism? Having a hard time coming back to reality? Bring it on!

[osgood_]

BenPleysier wrote:

You are making no sense.

Makes perfect sense.

'I try to keep my images below 100kb but certainly not above 400k' - what does that actually mean?

I'l help you out here:

You try and keep you small to meduim size image below 100k whilst your large hero image may be anything up to 400k. The OP was taliking about a World map so to suggest that could be below 100kb and readable is quite simple ridiculous.

BenPleysier wrote:

As you have stated, you don't care about the end user yet, according to all of your other posts, you do care about warning against a so-called 'bloated' Bootstrap framework.

I care about visual impact as that it the single most important aspect of sustaining a user on most wbesites other than shite governnment site which dont have to compete - I certainly could'nt care less about providers of bandwith its up to them to offer unlimited plans. They could right now but why when they are making a killing - eventually one will like what happened with broadband.

BenPleysier wrote:

Which makes me wonder. Why did you single my post out for criticism? Having a hard time coming back to reality? Bring it on!

I thought, given the context of the question being asked about large images (a World map) mentioning 100k images was out of context.

[BenPleysier]

You are boring me. But I'l try to explain in an effort to help you.

According to the OP

I want to embed a picture (res: 16384x16384 (px), 4mb only

When I want to view that map on my system, the map would be scaled down to about 1700 x 1700 or about 1/10th of the original. If I were to optimize the image it would be about 400KB, in other words, the high end of what I would tolerate. However, if I was clever, and was was thinking of end users and costs etc, I would not serve the larger image to an unsuspecting user, I would have a link to the image and serve it as a PDF or similar with a warning of its size.

In other words, "given the context of the question being asked, 400KB is within context".

[osgood_]

BenPleysier wrote:

You are boring me.

I'm boring you because you anwsered very inappropriately as usual the question asked. How does 100k relate to anything they asked?

Not sure actually why even Bootstrap gets a mention....maybe its your total obsession...you like to mention it inappropriately everywhere and anywhere you get the oppoortuniity.

As you say Ben 'Bring it on'....

[BenPleysier]

This is going way off the rails as per usual. I'll be over your way come March and April and we can war it out over a game of chess, a glass of cognac and a big Cuban cigar. Maybe that will stop your stalking.

For now it's bye, bye.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier wrote:

This is going way off the rails as per usual. I'll be over your way come March and April and we can war it out over a game of chess, a glass of cognac and a big Cuban cigar. Maybe that will stop your stalking.

For now it's bye, bye.

You should be so lucky........let me know the dates and I'll make sure I've left the country.

[Nancy OShea]

<16384x16384 (px), 4mb only?

OMG!  That's insanely huge for the web.

Consider the average mobile user on a fixed data plan!  You've just wiped his bandwidth allotment with one image.  Is that a nice thing to do?  No.   It's terrible.

Most users do not have a display that can support 16,384 pixels.  That's just over the top, cazy excessive.

Nancy O.

[Guest]

Thank you for your helpfulness ,

Sorry, SVG is not an option for me.

Of course, this image is in a div, and is draggable (Should look like google maps).
Target group are pc user ONLY. I forgot to mention that, sorry.

Nobody wants to download a gigabyte file with a smartfone.

I know you should not differentiate user, but in this case I do it.

I repeat myself, but it is about a world map in a div container (draggable + zoom).

Why it works with 8192x8192px, and with 16384x16384px not?

Someone a tip?

[Nancy OShea]

weerd50083235 wrote:
Why it works with 8192x8192px, and with 16384x16384px not?

Someone a tip?

You have your answer.  It's too big.  Browsers will choke on it.

Why is SVG not an option?   It sounds perfect to me.  What have you tried?

http://bl.ocks.org/d3noob/5189284

Nancy O.

[Jon Fritz]

If I recall correctly (I read an article about this a long, long time ago and my memory may not be 100% accurate) it has to do with "the largest available block of the browser's memory". Something along the lines of no single file can be larger than the browser's largest available block of memory. They will auto-fail every time.

To test it, restart your browser and only open the file, it may just open. However as soon as you start going to other sites and start filling up the available memory, you won't have anything large enough to support those super-massive images and they'll fail.

It's part of the reason all those map sites online are actually made up of many many image tiles and not a single super-massive one.

Long and short of it is, there's no way to "fix" the problem, aside from cutting up your images and presenting them as multiple tiles that won't require huge individual blocks of memory.