• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Stop resizing my images!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Twile

Member
Simple. Don't resize stuff that is greater than 1280 pixels wide.

It used to not do it for PNG, but now it seems to resize my images down to that no matter what format I put them in. It's frustrating and does a very poor resize job, and the site doesn't even mention a horizontal resolution limit.

If you're worried about clueless people uploading needlessly huge files (photographs for example) then have a box which is checked by default for "Resize to 1280 pixels wide" and just allow the power users to manually say "No, I do want it larger, because there are details I'd rather not have smeared into oblivion."
 

Hanazawa

Would Like To Play a Game
Hueg picture is hueg.

I have a widescreen monitor and I still think that even 1280 wide is pushing the limits of what's reasonable for images for WEB DISPLAY.

if you want your viewers to see all the juicy details, make them buy prints ;p
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
I dunno FA said there is a size limit on huge images, but I hate what it does to my small ones. >:/

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/387998/

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/172423/

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/201271/ <-- big WTF.
 

Twile

Member
Hanazawa said:
I have a widescreen monitor and I still think that even 1280 wide is pushing the limits of what's reasonable for images for WEB DISPLAY.

if you want your viewers to see all the juicy details, make them buy prints ;p

I'm not really an artist, but I post pictures which I've had commissioned and sometimes color things and post those in high resolutions if possible. As such it's not really feasible to make people get prints for them (and seriously, who would, even if they were dirt cheap?), nor do I think people should have to pay for prints just to enjoy quality.

I realize the images are for web display, but they do have smaller resolution preview thumbnails. People who want to see them at full quality can click them. If you really want to see the whole image at once and it's larger than your display, all you have to do is save it to your desktop and double click and boom, a zoomed preview, to the exact size that's best for you. If the only copy of the images which is kept are those scaled images, however, there's nothing people can do to get back the original quality.

I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't cater to the least common denominator here, because people can always do stuff to view at lower resolutions, but never can people do the reverse. This is an art site. Could you imagine if the site was entirely limited to music and they said "Audio quality cannot exceed 96 kbps because some people can't stream higher than that due to bandwidth limitations" or something?

Take a look at some of the earlier furry porn on the internet from the 1990's. Say, 1997 or so. It's probably going to be either an ugly ugly GIF which looks coarse and speckly, or it will be a low resolution and low quality JPEG, both done to accomidate people who were running 640x480 or 800x600 CRTs and had 56k modems. In those frequent cases, people didn't plan for the future (presently monitors tend to be an average of 1024x768 or 1280x1024, in some cases as high as 1920x1200 or even 2560x1440, while internet transfer rates of 100-300 KB/sec are entirely reasonable). What we're doing now is no different and we'll come to regret in 5 years or so. When that 2560x1440 monitor has come down in price to $299 and some people even spring for the 3940x2040 (quad 1080p) version, and transfers of 1 MB/sec are totally normal, we'll look back at the 1280 x whatever images dumped into lossy JPEGs, with artifacts that are 2-3 times more apparent than they were when created, and say "Christ, what were we thinking?"

Now, I'm not saying that people should be forced to put out high quality high resolution stuff (firstly because you can't really force people to do that, secondly because if everyone did it might overload the site). But I do think that people who want to should be able to future-proof their work. Allowing PNGs with their lossless compression glory is a good thing. Putting a file size cap of 2-4 MB for images is unfortunate, but unlikely to seriously impair most images people are likely to make in the next year or two. Resizing things to lower resolutions (or in Arshes Nei's case, higher? o_O; ) is silly, backwards, and short-sighted.

The notion of "web this" and "web that" such as "web display" or "web audio/video" are also silly relics of the past which I hope will soon be done away with. If somebody spends a day drawing a picture, a week writing a song, a month animating a CG film, a year making a short film... who cares if what they're sharing takes 100 KB or 100 MB? If you have a high speed internet connection they'll transfer within a few minutes at most, and if not you have to wait longer and find other things to do. It's worth it to see the full beauty of somebody's creative vision, painstakingly arranged and digitized for the world to see.

It's kinda funny actually, how circular some of this logic can be. People will say "I don't want to keep full quality pictures and videos on my desktop because I don't have enough space" and they'll also say "I don't need more space because I don't have anything to do with it". They don't need the space so they don't get it, then when they don't have it they use that fact to justify the circulation of lower quality stuff that won't tax their storage system. Bleh... I hate the low end of technology...

Arshes Nei said:
I dunno FA said there is a size limit on huge images, but I hate what it does to my small ones. >:/

Whoa, yeah, that is pretty bizzare. FA needs to stop trying to be such a control freak c.c;
 

Hanazawa

Would Like To Play a Game
Twile, I can't really argue with your logic :)

All the same, if you don't cater to a (reasonably low) denominator, you lose people who fall into it. IIRC there are a surprising number of folks on the forums here who are still on dialup.

And a number of people on broadband who prefer not to scroll to see images. ;) I think that actually reflects the mindset of the prototypical/hypothetical furry artist... being too stuck on the details. Details are nice and lovely, but in "art" the image as a whole is more important than the tiny little hits of this 'n that.

...well, they're both important, but I think you can get what I'm saying. An artist who takes the time and effort to put in those minute details to begin with (how many details really need to be SUPERFREAKINGHUGE to be seen?) is hopefully also considering the composition as a whole and recognizes that having to scroll kind of ruins that.

artistic considerations aside, I'm pretty sure that the width thing is on the record as a filesize issue. And possibly more as a way to counteract people who haven't mastered resizing their images after scanning them in than anything else.
 

Twile

Member
Hanazawa said:
Twile, I can't really argue with your logic :)

All the same, if you don't cater to a (reasonably low) denominator, you lose people who fall into it. IIRC there are a surprising number of folks on the forums here who are still on dialup.

And a number of people on broadband who prefer not to scroll to see images. ;) I think that actually reflects the mindset of the prototypical/hypothetical furry artist... being too stuck on the details. Details are nice and lovely, but in "art" the image as a whole is more important than the tiny little hits of this 'n that.

...well, they're both important, but I think you can get what I'm saying. An artist who takes the time and effort to put in those minute details to begin with (how many details really need to be SUPERFREAKINGHUGE to be seen?) is hopefully also considering the composition as a whole and recognizes that having to scroll kind of ruins that.

artistic considerations aside, I'm pretty sure that the width thing is on the record as a filesize issue. And possibly more as a way to counteract people who haven't mastered resizing their images after scanning them in than anything else.

As far as file sizes go... again it's not the issue at hand. My image at 1600x1100 or so was about 600 KB, which is well below the level of what they consider to be too much and won't permit. Some comics which are really wide and not very tall are the same way. It's just... annoying...

In my case, the character was a fuzzy dragon. Now I spent hours getting that fur to look nice and detailed. I even made the fur from the fingers come slightly over the base of the claws. Those details are hidden when the resolution is tuned down.

Also, if you re-upload the file, it doesn't resize it. Again, not a problem due to the data size of the file.
 

Hanazawa

Would Like To Play a Game
I tried to find similar topics, for the sake of archiving/seeing what has already been said before.

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=1122 (file size vs dimensions)
http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=3662 (only 1/3rd-ish of respondants think 500kb+ is reasonable)
http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=3759 (who's on dialup)

the problem as I recall with capping based on file size for images is that audio submissions are obviously going to be much higher; even if you set the system to only respond to image submission sizes, there's still gonna be people saying that's not fair or complaining about how gross their pictures look with the added compression.
 

Twile

Member
Hanazawa said:
the problem as I recall with capping based on file size for images is that audio submissions are obviously going to be much higher; even if you set the system to only respond to image submission sizes, there's still gonna be people saying that's not fair or complaining about how gross their pictures look with the added compression.

I believe that it automatically does vary the file cap based on submission type. Or at least, it can. When you tell it to submit drawing art, it restricts you to .PNG, .JPEG, .GIF and .JPG. It does have different pages for the file selection, so they could impose that limit.

...and yeah. I am that person complaining about how gross my pictures look with the added compression. That is a result of adding the compression when it's based on resolution and not file size :|
 

yak

Site Developer
Administrator
> we shouldn't cater to the least common denominator here ...
That leaves me out of the circle of people FA will be catering to.

> internet transfer rates of 100-300 KB/sec are entirely reasonable
For the location you reside in, maybe. Over here 100-300KB/sec is godlike. I sit on 256Kbit ADSL link that i share with 6 other people to pay for the costs.

> What we're doing now is no different and we'll come to regret in 5 years or so.
If we do it now, we will not be round to regret this. Bandwidth costs will eat us alive. A lot more powerful hardware would have to be bought purely for file servers.

> Bleh... I hate the low end of technology...
Gah, i hate being poor :(



First of all, i apologize for acting inaproprietly, posting the above remarks.
It is not that i disagree with some things that you are saying or don't like hight-quality and resolution art myself, but... It's the wording of your post that got to me.

Like i've already said, the main limiting factor is resources. Our resources and our user resources.
On our side, bandwidth, data storage and processing power are what's important. On the user's side - bandwidth alone.

[attachment=1113]

Tweaking the user interface, adding new functionality, features, file types - all this has to be done in consideration with the limits we have.
If we didn't have those limits, FA'd be the next YouTube + flickr + allofmp3.com already.
 

Twile

Member
yak said:
a bunch of stuff

If you're sorry for posting the remarks, then perhaps you shouldn't post them. There's an edit button to remove them, though given you wrote you were apologizing before you posted, one wonders why you didn't just delete it. You're not sorry. You wanted to say that, don't pretend otherwise.

Grrrrr. I don't know how many times and ways I have to say it. If there's a bandwidth problem, then put file SIZE caps, not file RESOLUTION caps. Especially not arbitrary ones which aren't mentioned anywhere on the site and occur without you being told or asked. That annihilates each and every point of contention you had.

The only issue I've heard brought up which holds any water is that anything more than 1280 pixels wide may require the user to scroll from side to side which users don't like to do. Unfortunately this is something very hard to get around. First of all, even at 1280 pixels wide, you have to scroll. The image isn't aligned to the left of the whole site, so even if you have a 1280x1024 display you still have to scroll to the side. If you're like me and you have a 1024x768 laptop screen, the range of images you'll have to scroll through becomes even larger... but it still doesn't bother me.

Here's what I'll suggest. There are two levels of zoom when you view an image, right? One shows it scaled down to a small size, and the other shows it at the full size. My suggestion is that the "small" size be the one which you deem to be the biggest "for web display", such as 1280x720 or whatever max dimensions you choose, while the large size is the full resolution one. Right now I can't really see what the purpose is of having a thumbnail of the submission displayed when you've already opened up the page, because you can see a thumbnail for it before you open it. Give it a purpose, and set it to be the resized one while the other is the max size one.

Again, if the actual file size is the issue, due to bandwidth and such, then limit it. But so long as I'm allowed to post an image which weighs in at, say, 300 KB, why should FA care whether it's 1920 x 1080 or 800x600?

EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be rude with my first paragraph. Just think we should all be honest and straightforward about this.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Do you have a sample of your artwork?
I'm curious now because I understand the argument about details, but I want to see if details in your work are really missed because apparently the average user or whatnot isn't appreciating it?
 

Twile

Member
Arshes Nei said:
Do you have a sample of your artwork?
I'm curious now because I understand the argument about details, but I want to see if details in your work are really missed because apparently the average user or whatnot isn't appreciating it?

I'll repeat:

"I'm not really an artist, but I post pictures which I've had commissioned and sometimes color things and post those in high resolutions if possible."

Math dictates that using my 1623-pixel wide image rather than a 1280-pixel wide image results in a (1623/1280)^2 = 60.8% increase in surface area.

Just find an image at a higher resolution and scale it down to about 79% for a similar effect.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Most artists I know are smart enough to do "Detail shots" where they post significant portions where detail should be seen. It's too big too scroll a full sized image that you want and take in the detail. For compositional reasons it doesn't appeal to the viewer.

What you do is make a picture that fits most people's screens, and then show detailed shots of what you think is significant.
 

Twile

Member
Arshes Nei said:
What you do is make a picture that fits most people's screens, and then show detailed shots of what you think is significant.

Maybe my problem is that I just don't use FA like other people do. I actually rarely view images in the browser itself. I download them into a folder on my computer corresponding to the artist who made the image, then view them at my leisure with full search capability. Auto-resizing, or zooming as I wish. I will usually look at what I'm saving to my computer, and if I feel it appropriate I'll comment or favorite the piece, but generally I prefer to save bandwidth and time by keeping an offline version for myself.

I still do not, however, see what's wrong with my suggestion of offering the "fit to screen" size and the "full resolution" size. Make "fit to screen" whatever people think is a good compromise between showing detail and being fully visible, and allow art enthusiasts to get higher resolution stuff.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Twile said:
Arshes Nei said:
What you do is make a picture that fits most people's screens, and then show detailed shots of what you think is significant.

I still do not, however, see what's wrong with my suggestion of offering the "fit to screen" size and the "full resolution" size. Make "fit to screen" whatever people think is a good compromise between showing detail and being fully visible, and allow art enthusiasts to get higher resolution stuff.

It is rather tacky to crunch an image to "fit to screen" however, I'm sure you can also link the full size offsite by other free image hosting places too. That way it allows the viewer to view it at full size.

That's what I do with some of my images.
 

Twile

Member
Arshes Nei said:
It is rather tacky to crunch an image to "fit to screen"

YES! YES! You're exactly right there! And that's JUST what FA is doing right now which I take issue with! It crunches all images to "fit to screen" where the width is 1280. That's exactly what this thread is about. It is tacky. It is miserable looking. And it seems some people do want it so they don't have to scroll. Fine. Let them have it. But don't force users to live with a reduced resolution when a better one is available.

As far as putting images on other sites just to host higher resolution stuff... that seems... silly to me, at best. Silly that with an infrastructure set up to upload, tag, display, comment, favorite images, all that stuff, we have to resort to linking to off-site images just because some people don't want to scroll to the side. That's at best. At worst it's an inconvenience, you have to find a good site which gives you plenty of bandwidth, you have to do another registration and remember another password, you have to make sure any porn you might be uploading won't violate the TOS for that site, AND in the end it probably all goes to waste because many users don't read descriptions of images (can't tell you how many times people have complimented me on doing a good job on something I clearly state was a commission).

Right now I'd be happy with FA doing away with the resizing thing for the first upload (again, re-uploading an image doesn't resize it!), or if people really want to be able to see it resized sloppily to 1280 pixels wide, then that could be displayed in lieu of the current "here's a thumbnail of what you're about to see, even though you probably already saw this thumbnail before you got here".
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
I don't think you understand, it's not SOME, its MANY. That is one of the basics of understanding web design. People are ok with scrolling top to bottom provided it's not too long, but many people ARE NOT ok with scrolling from left to right.

I mentioned again scrolling in this matter actually disrupts looking at your image, most users will not appreciate it. So you are better off linking offsite where a person who doesn't mind will download it from there.

Please understand FA isn't censoring your art since you have an alternative, you're using their site, and they determined that obscenely large images hinders a user's experience. If you want to start putting in money to help with bandwidth on FA since they're nice enough to give us many features other sites make you pay for, perhaps they'll allow you to post extremely high resolution images.

At this point, looking at it from a webmistress (not on FA but another site) point of view, the request to have something like that is aggravating. I'm aggravated enough when I have to deal with our real estate "space" and adding annoying banners, it's also obnoxious to have to deal with scroll.
 

Twile

Member
Arshes Nei said:
I don't think you understand, it's not SOME, its MANY. That is one of the basics of understanding web design. People are ok with scrolling top to bottom provided it's not too long, but many people ARE NOT ok with scrolling from left to right.

I mentioned again scrolling in this matter actually disrupts looking at your image, most users will not appreciate it. So you are better off linking offsite where a person who doesn't mind will download it from there.

Please understand FA isn't censoring your art since you have an alternative, you're using their site, and they determined that obscenely large images hinders a user's experience. If you want to start putting in money to help with bandwidth on FA since they're nice enough to give us many features other sites make you pay for, perhaps they'll allow you to post extremely high resolution images.

At this point, looking at it from a webmistress (not on FA but another site) point of view, the request to have something like that is aggravating. I'm aggravated enough when I have to deal with our real estate "space" and adding annoying banners, it's also obnoxious to have to deal with scroll.

Are my letters displaying in the right color or something? I feel like people aren't reading them.

1. I do understand, and have stated, the issue that people have with scrolling from left to right. That is why this would only happen when people want to "Full View" or download something. It would be for people who want a copy on their computer for later viewing (Want to search? Internet not always accessible? Artists like to nuke their galleries?) and people who do want to scroll or have large monitors. I'm not saying that a large image should be the only option. I'm just saying it should be an option.

2. As I said before, I fail to see how linking to an off-site picture is useful when it takes so much damn work and most people don't even read the description of the piece, hence would miss the tediously obtained link.

3. I never said nor implied that FA is censoring my art.

4. All I want is the ability to post higher resolution stuff, or if they decide that's not going to work, they should at least post the resolution cap so there is no confusion about it and people can do it on their own computers, saving FA processing power and resulting in better looking pictures (FA does a really shitty resize).

5. THIS IS NOT ABOUT BANDWIDTH. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY IT? If they want us to use less bandwidth, they should say so. If they want files to be smaller, they should say it and impose a cap, rather than allowing us to put up images up to 6 MB in size. If bandwidth were a huge issue they would presumably put limits on music first, as a song is usually 5-10 times more bandwidth per "view" than an image. Or they'd lower the file size limits. Or something. But resizing the user's pictures (poorly I must add) without mentioning it ANYWHERE is a bizzare and bad practice. People who don't notice it end up with shitty looking pictures.

Congratulations, you win. By completely ignoring everything I've been posting, and in fact saying that I don't understand, you've caused me to become thoroughly sick of this whole thing. I'm done with this thread. I'll continue to use the get-around for posting high resolution art, and I'll let people know about it to the best of my ability. Good day.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Twile said:
Are my letters displaying in the right color or something? I feel like people aren't reading them.

I may have danced around 1 or 2 points but ok, here let's be more straightforward then.

1. Yes, and people don't want scroll at a FULL view. I don't understand why this is also difficult to understand. The current thumbnail view may not be enough but at the same time people don't want scroll view attack when viewing the full view. You destroy the value of the piece if people can't read it compositionally. This is a viewing site, if you want to disect the piece and want people to sit down and look at every detail for technical merits, host it off site. Not a lot of FA users are interested unfortunately. What part of this do you not understand?

2. Ok if people don't want to read descriptions chances are they're people that don't care about the technical details of your piece that you need to have it sized to scroll all over their screens at full view. Those who are interested will take the time to click it and get the info you'd like spread about.

3. I recall how you were saying "they need to stop controlling our art" as a response to my problem of them resizing my small images. So while technically it wasn't a direct mention of censorship it did give the impression of one.

4. Well here is a question, is it preventing you from uploading in the first place because of their restrictions? Or is it just doing the tacky forced resizing so that it doesn't cause scroll. If the latter is the case, does hitting DOWNLOAD mean you get that superbig picture with the correct proportions? So if that's the case, problem solved, stop bitching XD

5. Ok agreed not about bandwidth, it's more of an assault on the eyes issue than anything esle.
 

Twile

Member
Arshes Nei said:
1. Yes, and people don't want scroll at a FULL view. I don't understand why this is also difficult to understand. The current thumbnail view may not be enough but at the same time people don't want scroll view attack when viewing the full view. You destroy the value of the piece if people can't read it compositionally. This is a viewing site, if you want to disect the piece and want people to sit down and look at every detail for technical merits, host it off site. Not a lot of FA users are interested unfortunately. What part of this do you not understand?

2. Ok if people don't want to read descriptions chances are they're people that don't care about the technical details of your piece that you need to have it sized to scroll all over their screens at full view. Those who are interested will take the time to click it and get the info you'd like spread about.

3. I recall how you were saying "they need to stop controlling our art" as a response to my problem of them resizing my small images. So while technically it wasn't a direct mention of censorship it did give the impression of one.

4. Well here is a question, is it preventing you from uploading in the first place because of their restrictions? Or is it just doing the tacky forced resizing so that it doesn't cause scroll. If the latter is the case, does hitting DOWNLOAD mean you get that superbig picture with the correct proportions? So if that's the case, problem solved, stop bitching XD

5. Ok agreed not about bandwidth, it's more of an assault on the eyes issue than anything esle.

1. Haha. Wow. Perhaps you don't get my redefinition. A scaled view is what FA currently has as the max resolution image, 1280 pixels wide. A full view is just that. FULL image, FULL resolution, FULL size. If people want to be scroll-conscious they can view the scaled images, like what FA does now. If they want to see or download the whole thing, they can do that with a FULL view. I don't see why FA is a strict viewing site. As far as I can tell, FA is just an art community site. Whether they do or don't have thumbnails or oversized versions of images available to view doesn't change this! And... dissecting a piece and looking at details for technical merit? Are you kidding me? I don't want to dissect a piece and think about how hard the details were to do, I simply want the details to BE there.

2. Again, I don't give a sh*t about technical details. Most artists don't go into details about how they made a piece besides possibly telling what software they used for each component of it. Don't make the assumption that just because somebody doesn't have the time or interest to read each and every description, that person will not care for higher resolution art.

3. I was making a damn joke about how "FA needs to stop trying to be such a control freak c.c;". Perhaps you didn't pick up on this. To reiterate, I was saying that FA was being "a control freak" by trying to resize my images down to 1280 pixels wide, while resizing your images up from their small size. Don't try to make a connection between being "a control freak" and censoring artwork, because it is. Not. There.

4. Here's exactly what happens when you have a larger image you attempt to upload. If it's under 6 MB it uploads correctly, however, it resizes the image to 1280 pixels wide if it is more than that. If you click Download, Full View, or anything, you cannot see the larger picture that was uploaded, only the resized one. This is precisely what I'm taking issue with here. I just uploaded a sample image which was 1500 x 100 pixels. It weighed in originally at 7.81 KB (because it was a PNG of just two colors). FA resized it to 1280 x 85 pixels, which (by introducing more colors) upped the size to 20.8 KB. It also made the image look much worse, almost like they converted it from PNG to JPG before resizing, then turned it back into a PNG at the new size. When I did the resize on my own end, the image was 17.7 KB and didn't have any of the ugliness the sample image did. Take a look yourself: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/460591/ . The thing is, if you go to the edit menu and re-upload the picture, it doesn't resize it.

5. Glad we got that across.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
"Full resolution" can simply imply the full resolution supported by Fur Affinity. I tend to draw on 4800x3200 digital canvases. In the past, people have tried to upload images that big to FA and it breaks the site. I've got a 24" HD monitor, 1920x1200 resolution. When *I* can't even view the image on the site, well, there's a problem.

Why post ultra-huge images that break the site when you can just as easily link to them in the description? I understand your frustrating, but resources come directly from my bank account when donations don't cover it, and that's a burden that can grow out of control easily. I don't have limitless funds and I'm trying to do things behind the scenes to raise money, but it costs money to make money, and it's a time consuming (and stressful process).
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Preyfar said:
"Full resolution" can simply imply the full resolution supported by Fur Affinity. I tend to draw on 4800x3200 digital canvases. In the past, people have tried to upload images that big to FA and it breaks the site. I've got a 24" HD monitor, 1920x1200 resolution. When *I* can't even view the image on the site, well, there's a problem.

Exactly, this is the web, so different rules apply here versus going to a gallery/museum that can host overly large items for people to view.

The other thing is, the whole reason (well two actually) that artists work at extremely high resolution sizes that are often bigger than their "workspace" (monitor resolution) is because they work sloppy they're not making detailed strokes in their art so that the image looks better reduced. Stray marks/wobbly lines tighten up. Colors blend better, etc.

The other reason is for printing.

Here, FA is an audience, the audience is trying to view an image larger than their monitors, is like trying to appreciate a sunset through 2"  cut hole in a large piece of cardboard. You're obscuring the image due to a ridiculously high size.
 

Twile

Member
Preyfar said:
Arshes Nei said:
other stuff

Bleh. Maybe I'm being too forward-looking. Maybe I'm just using the site the wrong way. Still...

Meh. I guess this might be more useful to discuss a year or two from now, when bandwidth costs are lower, speeds are faster, displays are larger, and web standards are higher. As much as I'd like to have higher resolution stuff fully supported on FA without the awkwardness of off-site linking, it doesn't seem like any amount of debate is going to sway people.

However, until then, it feels like you should at least put up something which states the maximum horizontal resolution. Where it tells the file size cap, for example, just include "image width is limited to 1280 pixels" or somethin'. If users know this, they can do the resize themselves, which will result in higher quality and/or smaller files. Bandwidth usage goes down, image quality goes up, users know more, and nobody is confused about why their images don't look how they did before being uploaded.
 

Swampwulf

Verbose Senior Bitch
You might want to change the TOS:

Fur Affinity Administration and Staff reserve the rights of the following:
To edit and/or modify submissions in ways deemed necessary by the Fur Affinity Staff to keep in alignment with the Terms of Service. Such editing will be limited to: adding/editing tags, descriptions, comments or re-labeling the submissions accordingly. Fur Affinity will not modify or censor original uploads.

It sounds like a more than reasonable limitation to me.
Anything above that resolution sounds more like a 'printer file' to me.
It would most definately be a good note to add to the 'plain english' wiki annotations

(but then, I remember spending all night to download an image that my computer couldn't display because it was too high resolution for my video card to handle because it had more than 16 colors. )
 

Twile

Member
Swampwulf said:
You might want to change the TOS:

Fur Affinity Administration and Staff reserve the rights of the following:
To edit and/or modify submissions in ways deemed necessary by the Fur Affinity Staff to keep in alignment with the Terms of Service. Such editing will be limited to: adding/editing tags, descriptions, comments or re-labeling the submissions accordingly. Fur Affinity will not modify or censor original uploads.

Whoa, I didn't even think of that. That's a very good point. It totally does modify the original upload. So either a TOS wording change or a website function change would seem to be in order.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top