fox_whisper85
Member
Okay, that's fair, then I'll feel better about signing up for FA+
What happened to "We will not be limiting the current site features for users who do not choose to subscribe"?
- Thread starter ieatbees123
- Start date
Okay, that's fair, then I'll feel better about signing up for FA+
RestrainedRaptor
Well-Known Nuisance
Of course, PayPal can choose to end its contract with a company at any time for any reason, and many other sites serving adult content have been destroyed by that in the past. We'll have to wait and see.
D
Deleted member 162282
Guest
Yeah, but those many adult sites didn't have upstanding furry folk.
DragonSkyRunner
New Member
Except resolution in practice is arbitrary to filesize.
Hard drives cost money, server hardware cost money, bandwidth and hosting cost money, no one's going to reasonably argue the point that those costs don't need to be covered somehow. Which, a limit on the filesize of uploads and paywalling going higher is a genuine tangible knock-on to those hosting costs.
Resolution however? No. More pixels =/= a direct 1:1 increase in the amount of data required. A flat colour cartoony drawing can be compressed FAR more without any loss, and thus get away with a higher raw resolution for crispier linework (Especially if the image is hard edged aliased artwork. Heck, trying to compress that kind of image usually INCREASES the filesize.), than a digitally painted image with brushstrokes everywhere, effectively creating difficult to compress noise that would necessitate flat out either destroying the image with a high .jpg compression level or shrinking the resolution.
The stinging point I see in the immediate is this arbitrary restriction on raw resolution (FA+ or otherwise) makes certain kinds of uploads flat out impossible. Comic pages at resolutions high enough to get a decent amount of detail per-panel, sequences that are not particularly tall but get wide to have every step of the sequence in a single image, and long 'n skinny tutorials that could easily be 10,000+ pixels tall but only a few thousand wide that's largely made up of text with interspersed image examples. All three of those examples have one thing in common: Because comic pages and sequences are usually flat colour affairs with minimal shading, and tutorials are 80% text for the entirety of their height, they compress down with minimal or even no detail loss incredibly well, but they need the raw resolution to resolve the detail they do have. Tutorials especially, can't read text on a "2K" or "4K" shrunk version of a image that's meant to be 12,000 pixels tall.
So as a solution that actually fixes the issue (reducing server costs) without being arbitrary:
- Remove any resolution limits entirely.
- Restrict file upload size for non FA+ users to 5mb.
- Make the limit for FA+ users 10-15mb.
In parsing through my own renders and saved artwork, up to 5mb seems to be the sweet spot of "You can get a reasonable amount of detail/information for many kinds of images without the the image being unwieldy.", while 10-15mb is the point where you can get properly F###HUGE with the detail without needing to compress it into a complete mess, but beyond that is straight up diminishing returns.
If nothing else, not having any arbitrary resolution limit but a tight limit on filesize means users who care about image quality will be encouraged to go out of their way to optimize how their image is compressed before uploading, which would absolutely have the net benefit of getting to the end goal of reducing hosting costs.
D
Deleted member 162282
Guest
This^
quoting_mungo
Well-Known Member
Tbh I think some kind of pixel dimension size cap is beneficial in the vast majority of cases. I’ve seen people upload fuzzy photos with that low-light noise you get especially in older/cheaper digital (including phone) cameras at full resolution. At that point FA didn’t even have fit-to-window code, so it made the submission page pretty obnoxious to load and navigate.
I’ve also seen huge canvases with low-detail, flat-color characters, and high-resolution scans of full pages of paper with a character taking up at most 1/9 of the space.
All of those are undeniable wastes of pixels. There isn’t sufficient detail to motivate those image dimensions. So what if they’re saved with high compression - at appropriate size and with appropriate cropping they’d still take up less space.
I believe that having a pixel dimension cap leads to more people pausing to think about whether they actually need that high resolution. And honestly? The portion of artists whose work has the detail to motivate those really high resolutions is not that big.
I don’t think it benefits viewers at all to let people upload a file like 10k pixels wide (that needs to be viewed at or close to that size) and more than a single screen space tall - horizontal scrolling is a pain in the ass at the best of times and when paired with vertical scrolling it’s just ludicrously user unfriendly.
I’m not saying anything as to what the final limitations should be, but I do think that making it a complete free-for-all wouldn’t be a good idea.
I’ve also seen huge canvases with low-detail, flat-color characters, and high-resolution scans of full pages of paper with a character taking up at most 1/9 of the space.
All of those are undeniable wastes of pixels. There isn’t sufficient detail to motivate those image dimensions. So what if they’re saved with high compression - at appropriate size and with appropriate cropping they’d still take up less space.
I believe that having a pixel dimension cap leads to more people pausing to think about whether they actually need that high resolution. And honestly? The portion of artists whose work has the detail to motivate those really high resolutions is not that big.
I don’t think it benefits viewers at all to let people upload a file like 10k pixels wide (that needs to be viewed at or close to that size) and more than a single screen space tall - horizontal scrolling is a pain in the ass at the best of times and when paired with vertical scrolling it’s just ludicrously user unfriendly.
I’m not saying anything as to what the final limitations should be, but I do think that making it a complete free-for-all wouldn’t be a good idea.
DragonSkyRunner
New Member
That sounds like a "Website doesn't format images on the post page properly" problem, not a problem with the image itself. It's standard practice on, basically any other art or image hosting website ever to, in some capacity, have the image that loads in be formatted to fit the screen nicely, with the option to click the image to see the full resolution/size version of it, if applicable.
The website shouldn't be dictating the technical intent of the image, short of where it actually matters to operating cost to the website (the aforementioned upload size limit). If someone wants to post a full rez point-and-shoot camera photo, they shouldn't have to shrink the resolution down because some people doesn't like having to deal with large resolutions. And if other people don't know how to format their images properly, that's on them, not the website to dictate such things (outside of again, if it's a resource hog due to poor formatting).
Shouldn't have to make restrictions for everyone else because of those who don't understand how to make/format images properly.
The website shouldn't be dictating the technical intent of the image, short of where it actually matters to operating cost to the website (the aforementioned upload size limit). If someone wants to post a full rez point-and-shoot camera photo, they shouldn't have to shrink the resolution down because some people doesn't like having to deal with large resolutions. And if other people don't know how to format their images properly, that's on them, not the website to dictate such things (outside of again, if it's a resource hog due to poor formatting).
Shouldn't have to make restrictions for everyone else because of those who don't understand how to make/format images properly.
D
Deleted member 162282
Guest
At the end of the day, it's only $0.16 per day, for what I believe is the highest traffic furry site out there? I'm just gonna pay it, so all my nasty art can scar people in high resolution. I get it, people are gonna hate this opinion, but I am always happy to pay a little for sites I enjoy.
Paypal knows that Patreon uses it also at start and now they got huge banning/limiting content because of the pressure. They are just waiting the right time to ask FA to delete everything they don't want. This is how paypal kills many adult platforms. Paypal is just a timed bomb..
fox_whisper85
Member
Gee, thanks, I hate it.
JendaLinda
Member
I don't see a reason why FA+ users should be limited in image resolution. I agree with the file size limit. It should be up to the user to manage the peovided data budget. I could easily fit 10000x10000 pixel art into the file size limit.
So my suggestion is to remove image resolution restrictions for FA+ users, keepúing some reasonable file size limit. That may also convince more users to get FA+.
So my suggestion is to remove image resolution restrictions for FA+ users, keepúing some reasonable file size limit. That may also convince more users to get FA+.
fox_whisper85
Member
Also my grievances for PayPal pulling a douche move and banning accounts. Even if they "agreed" to not do it for FA, they still most likely will.
Frank Gulotta
Send us your floppy
fox_whisper85
Member
JendaLinda
Member
Alright, if this is the concern, what solution would you suggest?
As I understand, the situation about upoloads was unsustainable. Some changes are necessary. However, high resolution images have legitimate use cases, so those should be allowed in some form.
About the waste of pixels in hires, low detail images. Image compression in principe takes advantage of repeating information, so large areas of flat colors will actually result in relatively small file size.
Cropping scanned images is of course a good practice, that's no doubt.
Last edited:
fox_whisper85
Member
That's not the issue I was talking about, I'm talking about PayPal revoking Patreon users' accounts, banning payment methods, etc because of NSFW/furry artwork. How do we know they won't pull a similar dick move? And then there's the issues of images getting compressed unnecessarily upon upload and the cramped UI design that had to be fixed by CSS script commands that was "by design" otherwise.
TyraWadman
The Brutally Honest Man-Child
That's because in Paypals TOS it states it doesn't support transactions for NSFW content.
A lot of people don't read the fine print, it was never a secret.
JendaLinda
Member
Both issues are related, so I wrote it in a single post. The "Update submission file" workaround was overused. It completely makes sense to create two tiers for uploads. It also makes sense to keep unlimited image resolution for paying users.
Speaking of Paypal, if it can't be trusted, are there any other payment methods available that work internationally? I don't remember, I have FA+ active at the moment.
fox_whisper85
Member
You didn't answer the question. How in the ever loving hell is this "safe" to use for FA+? And yet the staff insists using FA+ with PayPal is safe, on a site, with NSFW/adult artwork. Yeah, that makes me feel so much better.
TyraWadman
The Brutally Honest Man-Child
Because it's a donation to help keep the site running, you aren't putting down money to a nsfw commission. Shinies are even acceptable and it mentions in the actual announcement that they consulted PayPal directly.
Look through the older announcement journals.
Most people who lose their PayPal accounts are knowingly trying to cheat their system and take payment for nsfw or accept payment in the form of donations to avoid the tax. That will result in getting your account banned.
fox_whisper85
Member
I'm not opposed to helping to support the site, I just can't trust PayPal to not pull a dick move because some hidden policy or something.
CreachureComforts
bonehead
Okay, but do you have a payment alternative in mind who does the job better and/or is less biased against sites like FA?
fox_whisper85
Member
No, I don't. can't blame me for being hesitant, can you? Sheesh, excuse me for being hesitant.
Twopaw Tarnished-Silver
Nikonthrope
I clearly remember a lot of posts on the old Velan Central Library were along those lines; more or less exceptionally simple, poorly-scanned line drawings with their sole strength a solid scene or narrative between drawings, not unalike Rob Liefeld's work at a lower resolution, worse at attention to detail and quality of or skill at scanning. Many of them were drawn on what looked like three-ring lined notepaper or sheets of lime-hue division graph paper, not a few were photographed with what I assume was a digital camera of the era.
While that genera of extremely poor quality scans and draughtwork aren't anywhere near as common on FurAffinity in the last ten years' breadth of posted drawings that I've seen in searches, if you have particular niche interests and use syntax to that end with FA's native search engine you will find a lot of drawings that are not, shall we say, high-fidelity.
-2Paw.