4 ms·

Alternatively, use Filepicker.io. filepicker.store(myFile, {location: "S3"}, function(FPFile){console.log("File stored in S3 at "+FPFile.key+" and available at

Alternatively, use Filepicker.io. filepicker.store(myFile, {location: "S3"}, function(FPFile){console.log("File stored in S3 at "+FPFile.key+" and available at "+FPFile.url);});

tadruj 14y ago
filepicker.io is a little bit more heavy-weight on the browser. But I really like it. It's THE start-up of 2012 for me. This post was intended for the people who want to have a specific and stand-alone building block just for S3.
philfreo 14y ago
unfortunately they don't return the full url to the file on YOUR s3 bucket (but you can piece it together)
- brettcvz 14y ago
  Our concern is that if we return the direct S3 url, people less experienced will assume that the S3 url should work by default, when it will 403. So we return Filepicker.io urls which alias to your S3 bucket
  - philfreo 14y ago
    then you should have an example IAM Policy in a very easily accessible location overall as someone who is currently using filepicker, i would recommend people avoid it if all you want to do is upload to files to your own bucket without any transformations like image resizing
    - matb33 14y ago
      You could leverage zencoder to generate your thumbnails. Send the job as a test so it's free (limited to 5 seconds but that's ok since we only want thumbnails) and specify your thumbnail settings as desired. You could even set the clip length to one frame so the video encoding step is nearly skipped. Since zencoder runs on AWS, you should get near-LAN transfers between S3 and zencoder
templaedhel 14y ago
I came here to say this exactly, and was a little disappointed to see the mixed bag of filepicker impressions. Filepicker is awesome. At my job I just had to implement direct to s3 uploads, and filepicker cut down the work by 10x. It's basically a one line implementation to save the contents of a file input to s3. That's awesome. The pricing is extremely liberal, and the docs are good. I haven't used many of the more advanced features, but even at its simplest form it's an excellent tool. As for the complaints here, they seem to be mostly pedantic - I would much rather concat a few strings to build the proper s3 URL when the alternative is building the whole upload infrastructure, and once again, that's without considering all the advanced features filepicker gives you.
JuDue 14y ago
Filepicker is a great idea, especially if you want to alter the image size or make thumbnails without the hassle of setting up the processor. Just with their image manipulations were a bit more fully featured, like imagemagic

Alternatively, use Filepicker.io. filepicker.store(myFile, {location: "S3"}, function(FPFile){console.log("File stored in S3 at "+FPFile.key+" and available at "+FPFile.url);});

tadruj 14y ago

filepicker.io is a little bit more heavy-weight on the browser. But I really like it. It's THE start-up of 2012 for me. This post was intended for the people who want to have a specific and stand-alone building block just for S3.

philfreo 14y ago

unfortunately they don't return the full url to the file on YOUR s3 bucket (but you can piece it together)

brettcvz 14y ago
Our concern is that if we return the direct S3 url, people less experienced will assume that the S3 url should work by default, when it will 403. So we return Filepicker.io urls which alias to your S3 bucket
- philfreo 14y ago
  then you should have an example IAM Policy in a very easily accessible location overall as someone who is currently using filepicker, i would recommend people avoid it if all you want to do is upload to files to your own bucket without any transformations like image resizing
  - matb33 14y ago
    You could leverage zencoder to generate your thumbnails. Send the job as a test so it's free (limited to 5 seconds but that's ok since we only want thumbnails) and specify your thumbnail settings as desired. You could even set the clip length to one frame so the video encoding step is nearly skipped. Since zencoder runs on AWS, you should get near-LAN transfers between S3 and zencoder

templaedhel 14y ago

I came here to say this exactly, and was a little disappointed to see the mixed bag of filepicker impressions. Filepicker is awesome. At my job I just had to implement direct to s3 uploads, and filepicker cut down the work by 10x. It's basically a one line implementation to save the contents of a file input to s3. That's awesome. The pricing is extremely liberal, and the docs are good. I haven't used many of the more advanced features, but even at its simplest form it's an excellent tool. As for the complaints here, they seem to be mostly pedantic - I would much rather concat a few strings to build the proper s3 URL when the alternative is building the whole upload infrastructure, and once again, that's without considering all the advanced features filepicker gives you.

JuDue 14y ago

Filepicker is a great idea, especially if you want to alter the image size or make thumbnails without the hassle of setting up the processor. Just with their image manipulations were a bit more fully featured, like imagemagic