I'm on Inkbunny! -- Athus' Journal -- Fur Affinity [dot] net

I'm on Inkbunny!

15 years ago

I've created an account on Inkbunny! Come check me out =)

http://inkbunny.net/Athus

This site seems amazing so far. Uploads are easy and it allows anyone who wants, to get prints of whatever art the artists allow it of =) It's fast, organized, and doesn't have the shitty resolution restrictions and horrible server side image compression on pics uploaded like FA does XD

39 Comments

Dragoneer

∞dragoneer

Digimon | Virus-Type

15 years ago

We don't re-compress images unless they're over limit.

IPGhost ~ipghost

Watcher

15 years ago

I'm guessing those limits are too low then...

Dragoneer

∞dragoneer

Digimon | Virus-Type

15 years ago

1280x1280 is fairly large, actually.

IPGhost ~ipghost

Watcher

15 years ago

Not in a 10MP era, heh.

Dragoneer

∞dragoneer

Digimon | Virus-Type

15 years ago

No.

A 10MP era doesn't exist on the internet where bandwidth and storage requirements are still very much the norm. 3648 x 2736 is not a web friendly resolution given the average monitor is still about 1280x1024, and the largest monitors are still 1920x1200 (which isn't even 3MP).

So the megapixel argument? Totally bunk.

IPGhost ~ipghost

Watcher

15 years ago

Browsers can scale stuff down. They've kinda been able to do that for years

My point (though other artists are more qualified to make it) is that sometimes you just need a higher resolution. Or a scaling system that doesn't butcher pictures the way GD/ImageMagick does.

Robat ~robat

Digital Artist

15 years ago

Then they should put it in a zip-archive or something. Unless you are willing to buy me a gigabyte of RAM for my seven year old system, I won't put up with the resource hogging of a browser which tries to scale that shit down

tahoe_sushi ~tahoesushi

Photographer

15 years ago

So, every person who has kept up with technology should be lowering their accepted standard because of a few people who make up less then a quintile of people?

Robat ~robat

Digital Artist

15 years ago

Well I appreciate the sheer abundance in processor strength and RAM quantity for stuff such graphic intense games, calculations of complex scenarios and decryption, but at the same time it encourages people to create basic applications in ridiculously bloated forms because they don't notice their inefficient codes on these high-end machines anymore because these are just minor inconveniences.

tahoe_sushi ~tahoesushi

Photographer

15 years ago

True if this were program programming, this isn't though, this is web design programming. The two are quite a bit different when it comes to how they bog down your computer.

Robat ~robat

Digital Artist

15 years ago

In browsers the two meet and Firefox3's excessive resource hogging when dealing with ridiculously big pictures really makes me wish for those to be uploaded in a way that I don't have to open them with a browser.

tahoe_sushi ~tahoesushi

Photographer

15 years ago

They do have the preview function for images you know right? Furthermore, that isnt something any web designer has any control over UNLESS they penalize the experience of everyone else for the sake of, again, fewer than a quintile.

Firon ~firondraak

i like art

15 years ago

The main issue is vertical resolution. Comics and whatnot often need way more than 1280px vertically. It'd be nice if the restriction was at least 2048x1280 or something like that. It'd still be better if y'all just did the actual size restrictions instead of resolution restrictions, though I know it's to help keep FA's bandwidth costs down.

Nymousano ~nymousano

Watcher

15 years ago

agrees. I have a 1024x768 - resolution, so I appreciate images that fit these terms. Why uploasing stuff with 3000x5000 - res?

Nymousano ~nymousano

Watcher

15 years ago

uploasing =uploading

Athus ∞athus

Traditional Artist

15 years ago

My concern is when I upload an image that's below 1280X1280, the quality of the image that shows up on FA is noticeably lesser then the original image on your comp. The only way to remedy this seems to be re-uploading the same image in the Edit Submission section and the new image will look the same on FA as it does on your comp. I know a lot of gallery related sites use an embedded auto-re compression snippet that makes images a little more bandwidth friendly from the version the user uploaded, so seeing the quality drop difference, I assumed FA used the same sort of thing.

If that's not the case though, I'm quite curious what causes the drop in quality on images under 1280X1280 that I upload?

Dragoneer

∞dragoneer

Digimon | Virus-Type

15 years ago

Negative. Anything under 1280x1280 /does not/ get re-compressed. The are zero quality differences at all on the server side. There's not even a script to touch anything under 1280x1280.