Resolved Quick question about images and hosting account

Status
Not open for further replies.

dWhite

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
7
Points
8
According to the Terms of Service: https://x10hosting.com/legal/terms-of-service

Image galleries are only allowed 500MB of disk space.

Would using 506x303 images in my blog posts hosted on my account be considered a personal image gallery or an image gallery period? I do not use any gallery plugins or anything, just the 506x303 images to use for Google+ big picture.
 

leafypiggy

Manager of Pens and Office Supplies
Staff member
Messages
3,819
Reaction score
163
Points
63
Good question.

I'm going to say "maybe".

At 100% quality, a theoretical 506x303 JPEG image is about 1.21Mb. You can get this down even more by compressing the JPG/dropping the quality (there's tons of online tools to do this, and photoshop plugins).

I don't think you'll come close to hitting it. :)
 

dWhite

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Good question.

I'm going to say "maybe".

At 100% quality, a theoretical 506x303 JPEG image is about 1.21Mb. You can get this down even more by compressing the JPG/dropping the quality (there's tons of online tools to do this, and photoshop plugins).

I don't think you'll come close to hitting it. :)

Would be interesting to see what opinion Corey has on this and to see whether or not my plan would fall under that restriction. I do use every image on my site, so it's not like I'd be using my account as an image host and offsite hotlinking it. At the current time, I am currently using Imgur for my images.

1.21MB for a 506x303 is quite a lot considering I've seen some super high resolutions going at 1.5MB. I use PNG and not JPG/JPEG.

Here's an example image I used in my blog post just a little while ago:
UGfVfvz.png


At 506x303 it shows it at roughly 57.4KB and is PNG. The JPG variation is roughly 54KB in size at same 506x303 resolution.

I'm just really curious about my original question and whether I would fall into the restriction. It was just a thought, I am perfectly happy to keep using Imgur regardless. Perhaps this question can be referenced for future people that ask the same thing, lol.
 
Last edited:

leafypiggy

Manager of Pens and Office Supplies
Staff member
Messages
3,819
Reaction score
163
Points
63
yeah 1.21Mb is kinda the "worst case" for a JPEG (random colors, full quality, noise... hard to compress).

With your 57.4Kb PNGs as an average... you can fit a LOT of images before you'll even think about hitting any limit.
 

dWhite

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
7
Points
8
yeah 1.21Mb is kinda the "worst case" for a JPEG (random colors, full quality, noise... hard to compress).

With your 57.4Kb PNGs as an average... you can fit a LOT of images before you'll even think about hitting any limit.

Well that would be just if I was using the 506x303 post header images and nothing else. I do plan on possibly putting up some full HD screenshots of games should I make a post like that and I've seen some of those kind of images reaching near 4MB a piece.

Even just with the 57KB PNGs, I'll spare x10 the disk space and keep on using Imgur. :)
 

Corey

I Break Things
Staff member
Messages
34,553
Reaction score
203
Points
63
We normally decide this on a case by case basis... we generally frown on image and file hosting because there are sites dedicated to that (imgur, youtube, etc) whereas we gear our hosting environment toward being fast for serving webpages, not storing files which means we pay a lot more in expenses for the hardware, software, and everything else to run our environment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top