• 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.

Hanazawa

Would Like To Play a Game
there's already a clause elsewhere that says FurAffinity has the right to store and resize your images (else they'd not be allowed to make thumbnails).

Submission Agreement said:
Upon submitting to Fur Affinity you grant the website non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media within the boundaries of the site's Domains (http://www.furaffinity.net/, http://www.furaffinityforums.net/ and http://www.wikiffinity.net/).
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Hanazawa said:
there's already a clause elsewhere that says FurAffinity has the right to store and resize your images (else they'd not be allowed to make thumbnails).

Submission Agreement said:
Upon submitting to Fur Affinity you grant the website non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media within the boundaries of the site's Domains (http://www.furaffinity.net/, http://www.furaffinityforums.net/ and http://www.wikiffinity.net/).

censor: ban: forbid the public distribution of

I still see his pics?
 

Twile

Member
Hanazawa said:
there's already a clause elsewhere that says FurAffinity has the right to store and resize your images (else they'd not be allowed to make thumbnails).

Submission Agreement said:
Upon submitting to Fur Affinity you grant the website non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media within the boundaries of the site's Domains (http://www.furaffinity.net/, http://www.furaffinityforums.net/ and http://www.wikiffinity.net/).

Then the TOS is poorly worded o_O;

One paragraph says they will not change it beyond the tags, titles, etc and that "Fur Affinity will not modify or censor original uploads". And another paragraph says they have rights to "transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media". These are two completely opposing statements and both can't continue to exist.

I suppose you can have the right to alter and resize submissions, just state that you won't do it, but then what's the point of having the right? And if that's the case, the TOS are violated, because they do modify original uploads.

So they either need to be reworded so they both work, or have one eliminated entirely.
 

Twile

Member
Arshes Nei said:
censor: ban: forbid the public distribution of

I still see his pics?

"Fur Affinity will not modify or censor original uploads."

I think yer gonna have to take the "modify" part out. You don't censor the things when you resize them, but they are modified.
 

Hanazawa

Would Like To Play a Game
I think they just need to reword it; I'm currently interpreting "modify or censor" to mean changing the CONTENT of images rather than dimensions, and that is probably what it's meant to say.
 

Twile

Member
Hanazawa said:
I think they just need to reword it; I'm currently interpreting "modify or censor" to mean changing the CONTENT of images rather than dimensions, and that is probably what it's meant to say.

Aye, I realize that. Just being nitpicky because that's how one must be when dealing with TOS and legal things :p
 

Swampwulf

Verbose Senior Bitch
Twile said:
Hanazawa said:
I think they just need to reword it; I'm currently interpreting "modify or censor" to mean changing the CONTENT of images rather than dimensions, and that is probably what it's meant to say.

Aye, I realize that. Just being nitpicky because that's how one must be when dealing with TOS and legal things :p

No, one musn't always be that way.
Dragoneer is a most reasonable person.
example:reasonable discussion in regards to the wording of that *exact* same phrase.
You'll note, please, that in the original wording it appears that the site *does*in fact reserve the right to edit a submission in any way they see fit.

Dragoneer found this to be distasteful and changed it on the spot.
I see why he had it phrased the way it was now.

I really, really like Hanazawa's single word fix.
I hope that they preserve content while reserving their ability to constrain the format in chooses to store/display it in.

Sorry that the site doesn't seem fitted to being used in the way you've found useful.
I'm a bit of an 'art hoarder' myself and it sounds like you've really got a nice organizational system there.
 

Twile

Member
Swampwulf said:
I really, really like Hanazawa's single word fix.
I hope that they preserve content while reserving their ability to constrain the format in chooses to store/display it in.

Sorry that the site doesn't seem fitted to being used in the way you've found useful.
I'm a bit of an 'art hoarder' myself and it sounds like you've really got a nice organizational system there.

Nitpicky doesn't mean bad, and I'm not saying the wording should be confusing. Just that it should be consistent and accurate. I believe the admins to be reasonable people.

The site does work pretty well for my purposes... it'd be faster if I could sort recent submissions by user rather than date, but other than that (and the issue that images can't be past 1280 pixels, rarely a problem right now though) it works decently for what I need.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
I'll discuss changing it after our data server gets upgraded.

Essentially, there was talks about doing this: user uploads 2048x2048 image. The system will only display a smaller image by default to save bandwidth. However, if users want to download a full resolution image, they can click on "download full resolution" (or whatever) and view the full deal.

Some theory behind the math as to why, at this time, we really don't want to allow uber-huge images on FA:
Image at 248K downloaded 550 times = 134.4MB
Image at 2.6MB high res downloaded 550 times = 1.43GB

You can quickly see where a single popular submission can start to swiftly eat away at bandwidth. Just imagine a few more of them, viewed over and over, and it starts to not just add up, but it's like a spedometer on the Autobahn... the numbers just click away at blinding speeds!

While we're not being nazis about full file size at the moment, the larger an image gets, the more popular it gets, it can instantly and readily hit FA quite hard.  It's a limitation we have in place to at least try and stem uber-bandwith abuse.
 

Twile

Member
Preyfar said:
Some theory behind the math as to why, at this time, we really don't want to allow uber-huge images on FA:
Image at 248K downloaded 550 times = 134.4MB
Image at 2.6MB high res downloaded 550 times = 1.43GB

I like number theory stuff like this, so I'll do a bit of my own. I took a 1320x1600 picture by Fel, saved it at 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, and 50% zooms with 95% quality JPEGs each time. The results are as follows

At 100% zoom it is 100% the image size and 100% the file size.
At 90% zoom it is 81% the image size and 86% the file size.
At 80% zoom it is 64% the image size and 72% the file size.
At 70% zoom it is 49% the image size and 60% the file size.
At 60% zoom it is 36% the image size and 48% the file size.
At 50% zoom it is 25% the image size and 38% the file size.

What does this mean? When you start with a higher resolution image and you shrink it down, its file size shrinks slower than the number of pixels it occupies. So looking at the 50% zoom image which is 4 times smaller on screen, the file has only shrunk by a factor of 2.63.

Why should we care? Well, it means that if you're going for the best "bang for your buck" so to say, the larger the image is, the more pixels you get per KB. So while it's obviously a silly thing to increase a picture's resolution after making it, if you start higher, the larger picture will probably be more "size efficient" than the smaller one.

Why does that matter? It means if you choose to upload a picture at two resolutions, one twice the size of the other, its file size will probably be well under what you'd expect--four times the size compared to the original.

This makes sense if you think about it, the intensity and number of transitions is usually smaller than if you were to simply tile the image four times.

SO! That's good news, the amount of detail we get goes up faster than the file size. The other good news is that we're not usually looking at such dramatic examples as the 248 KB vs 2.6 MB (don't know where you got those, but anyway!). If somebody chose to put an image up at 1600x1200 rather than 800x600, it'd only go up by a factor of (assuming it's similar to the Fel picture) 2.6 or so, rather than 10+. So if the original picture was 248 KB, the full view one would be 645 KB.

But, you say, increasing the site's bandwidth use by a factor of 2.6... that's a lot, that might overload the site and cause me to pay a bunch more!

Well, the extra good news is that, obviously, not everyone is going to upload at higher resolutions. Plenty of artists put out these little images which are 500 pixels on a side or perhaps 800. In order to make something twice as big, they'd either have to scan at twice the resolution (doable I guess), work at twice the resolution (a lot more work) or put up something which is already huge (a photo or an OC session screenshot). People typically don't push the 1280 pixel limit right now anyway, so the impact would probably be pretty minimal.

I do like what you had talked about, with the smaller image by default to save bandwidth, and the option to view the larger image on demand for those who care. That's kinda what I'd been recommending a number of posts back.

As I said before though, maybe I'm just being too forward looking. If you increase the size limit gradually, say kick it up to 1600 pixels width in 12-18 months, then higher after that, it would probably minimize the number of problems, and naturally increase as users wanted to work on larger canvases and had more screen space to view images too. Then again, if you just turned the limit up now, the fact that most people don't push the limit as is means it'd have little impact in bandwidth usage. If you're afraid of users who don't know what they're doing uploading full 5 megapixel photos, you could have a checkbox for "downsize to 1280 pixels" checked by default, which would let the knowledgable users take the time to ask for a larger image.

Yeah, I'll stop talking now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top