horst

Hi @ak1001, many thanks for your investigations. Please can you provide me with some informations, so that I can test it locally here, and try to update the ___isVariation stuff to fit with recent PW versions? (When pim was build, we don't have had imge-rendering-engines and the image structures as it is today. We only have had the imagesizer.php and the pageimage.php, where I copy pasted that method from.) Which version of PW are you using: Do you use Pim1 or Pim2: Which module version of Pim: What is the exact full URL of the image(s) in question:

Hi and welcome @uncle_bobson. A good start is to look into the DOCS section of this website, maybe starting with a tutorial or the "Getting started" part. (Depends on your skills and knowledge). Reading a bit about and deciding for a "output strategie" may help to. Also you can download the latest PW and play around a bit with the included different site profiles. If you have additional or specific questions after that, please post and ask here again. :-)

Hi @JC_G it can be and in most times it is that simple. Only thing I spotted is the version 2.5.7. I remember that there were some changes in regard of image (naming) processing around 2.5.11. So it can be a good additional check to look if there are some image related inputfieldtypes in use. (Check the modules - site screen, and if you find something like thumbnail- or croppable-image modules, please post there names here and I may provide some tipps or links, if necessary). But you also just can install it in a testversion on the new server, upgrade Processwire core to the latest stable and test and look if everything is working as expected.

Hi, I found this: https://processwire.com/api/ref/pagefile-extra/url/ Can you test it with passing a boolean false in the method call: webp->url(false)

Hi @eutervogel, I believe it has to do with a automatic optimization that Ryan has build into the webp->url method. Given that webp is used to get smaller filesizes, and that sometimes a png or jpeg can be smaller than its webp pendant, the smaller one of them is put out by the webp->url. In general a nice idea, but only when one output a single src url in an img tag. For the more advanced usage in picture or srcset elements it is wrong and also irritating the devs. If I remember right, there must be a config setting to disable this. If I find it, I post it here. If someone else reading this and knows where it is and how it is named, please shime in!

You can search like this via google: https://www.google.de/search?source=hp&ei=pdw6XtWCNbD4qwGGpYrQDA&q=site%3Aprocesswire.com+mp3&oq=site%3Aprocesswire.com+mp3&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.3...3099.24029..29059...0.0..0.133.2617.5j19......0....1.......0..46i131i275j0i131j0j46i131j46.4qJhHOpUkyQ#sbfbu=1&pi=site:processwire.com mp3 Then you will get a list, possibly with a link to an inputfield, but definetly to some useful information.

Some infos may help. How are the dimensions of the images (orig images and the watermark image) How much is the dedicated memory for PHP on your server / account?

Hhm, this is a very old one, from 2013. Which version of PW do you use?

... more links, to newer code snippets:

... and, if you want to do something that AOS doesn't support, one should use HOOKS instead of rewriting core modules, to avoid the version update hassle. 😉 TLDR; Following some example code from 2014/2015, (written before AOS was released).

PING: @Pete

For me, uploading a file/image from URL works by simply copy paste the URL into the upload inputtextfield. The browser / OS does all necessary then.

You should check via phpinfo if there are more disabled functions or more restrictions on that hosting account. If yes, I would overthink to upgrade or switch to another.

That is correct. Additionally you can send the language files to the maintainers of language packs. I think that editors don‘t get the core backend untranslated, but need a single module translated. (What also can be done with one additional step, if the language files are distributed together with the module) For me it doesn‘t look that bad as described by @dragan.

Many thanks for the suggestions, @Robin S I think the main check / exception must be in the getExif method. A check during install will be useless when deploying a site folder from local to stage or live. But it is no harm to have it too. 👍