Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

Probably because you didn't change https to http in the url.

Edit: No wait, I think I misunderstood what you were talking about.

[Mathel]

I used the actuall adress. If it is put into the starting tag, removing the s does not help. That was what I tested when I noticed.

In profile picture, using the s does what I described. Not using it causes the page to hang, as hops described.

Edit: I think I know what happens. SMF is uncapable of secure http inside the img tag, only between them.
But Imgur refuses base http.

[Egan_BW]

Putting imgur images into posts still works perfectly fine for me. like so:


Does this not display for you? If not I really will need to use postimages instead.

Also, when discussing bbcode tags, put the examples in [nobbc][/nobbc] so that it's clear exactly what you mean. Not really sure what you're talking about with stuff like "starting [* img *] tag".

[Mathel]

It shows, because you put it like [img]https://i.imgur.com/someimage.png[/img].
But if you put it like [img=https://i.imgur.com/someimage.png][/img], or if you put the address into your avatar selection querry, it just turns into a "http://" text.

[methylatedspirit]

Images in posts are dealt with by (and I paraphrase MaxSpin) "shitting out an <img> tag." SMF doesn't touch it at all, apart from changing the tag so that it's in HTML format. It's literally a hotlink to the image, so unless the image host is blocked where you are or it's incorrectly formatted, it should work fine. That's why Imgur's fine in posts.

[Maximum Spin]

It shows, because you put it like [img]https://i.imgur.com/someimage.png[/img].
But if you put it like [img=https://i.imgur.com/someimage.png][/img], or if you put the address into your avatar selection querry, it just turns into a "http://" text.

That's because that's not how you do it. You can put some arguments inside the tag, including width, height, and an alt text, but as separate parameters (eg '[img width=128 height=128]whatever.png[/img]'). You're just using the tag wrong fundamentally; it's not supported to do that at all, https or http. Try it with some image served over http and it will still not work - at least it doesn't when I tried just now.

ETA: I also took the trouble to look up a BBCode reference, and it only lists the usage where the URL goes where I said it should — there's no mention at all of any possibility of putting it after an = like you have tried.

[Caz]

maybe mixing up bbcode and html?

[Maximum Spin]

maybe mixing up bbcode and html?

That's not the right way to do it in html either. We can see the spec here, but to summarise, that would require "<img src=some.url>" with no closing tag. It works basically like the parameters you can put into the bbcode tag, but that can't take a src parameter.

[methylatedspirit]

I got a new (mildly used, more accurately) monitor, and it only supports VGA. Sure, whatever, I have an HDMI to VGA adapter with me for "emergencies" (can't hurt to be prepared; you never know when the only projector available only has VGA). I plug it in, and I'm noticing that the edges (left edge especially) are blurry. Center's decent, but still slightly off. Contrast ratio's poor, but it's expected.

Hmm... is it the monitor or the adapter? I went downstairs to test out on my rebuilt i5-4460 PC with a native VGA output, and, no, it's perfectly sharp and crisp there. Clearly the adapter.

Eh, at least it's the adapter that's screwed here. That thing did advertise a native resolution of 1024x768 (and I thought VGA itself was paleolithic), so it does feel like I'm going ever so slightly blind every time I look at this screen. Damned non-integer upscaling. I'm gonna have to buy a new adapter and hope that one doesn't suffer from the same issue.

Fakedit: Pressed some button on the monitor, it went a little wobbly on the horizontal, and now it's perfectly clear. I think that must've been the "calibrate" button. Huh. I suspect pixel clock issues, and thankfully, there already exist online pixel clock calibration patterns. Now to figure out this monitor's obtuse button layout to adjust the phase... 

Edit: ...and it's done.

[Arx]

Eh, at least it's the adapter that's screwed here. That thing did advertise a native resolution of 1024x768 (and I thought VGA itself was paleolithic)

? The original actual VGA spec only supported up to 640x480. The modern standards using the same connector are very much more advanced, just on the same wires.

[methylatedspirit]

How'd they manage to extend VGA up to 1080p and beyond? Magic? To my understanding, it's all analog anyway, so is there anything that wouldn't let you go to 4K on VGA, at least in theory?

[Bumber]

Oh, it seems you've just run into a problem that other people have faced. It seems that Imgur has changed something that's blocking SMF (Bay12's forum software) from fetching the image off Imgur. The current workaround is to either a) not have an avatar at all or b) use an alternative image host that does work.

c) Route it through an avatar rotator site.

[wierd]

How'd they manage to extend VGA up to 1080p and beyond? Magic? To my understanding, it's all analog anyway, so is there anything that wouldn't let you go to 4K on VGA, at least in theory?

...  People had greater than 1080p in the 90s.  What happened, was that LCD makers decided that "Computer resolutions" were not profitable to produce, and they focused ONLY on TV resolution displays, and CRTs were bulky and cumbersome.

How do I know? I LIVED THEN.  If you go use the wayback machine, you can find news articles and forum posts complaining about the horrible resolutions of LCDs when they first came out, and the abject refusal of the makers to make anything other than TV resolution displays.

[Vector]

CRT televisions had the best color fidelity. We still haven't managed to get that through LCD displays. I really miss my family's little old CRT TV.

[Lord Shonus]

I still use CRTs for older game consoles and now my antique computer. You're quite right that they have significantly better color, and I find myself often preferring to use this 15" 1024x768 CRT over my 32" 4K flatscreen.