# Max. Image Size



## Rivercoon (Aug 19, 2012)

What is the REAL maximum size of picture that can be uploaded to Fur Affinity?  The submission upload page lists it at 1280 x 1280 but I see pictures substantially larger than that showing up from time to time.  Is the automatic resizer broken perhaps?


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 19, 2012)

If you upload it under size then reupload it it allows you to make the size larger, i wish this was fixed because unless you have a really long comic or really detailed stuff there is no reason your shit should be 4000x4000


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 19, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> there is no reason your shit should be 4000x4000



Especially since most resolutions cap around 1680x1050 or some shit.
After the initial limit is bypassed, I believe that there is no visible limit on files as long as they remain under 10mb. This is one of the many brilliant contributions of FA's development team.


----------



## hera (Aug 20, 2012)

I was about to post about this.  Unfortunately, it's a major issue I seen even abused by Yak himself.  I find it stupid that one of the admins is abusing their own system.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8562024/  This was uploaded in macro/micro (adult).  

You submit a pic,  change the submission file and pic any picture you want.  As long as its under 10 MB it will be uploaded.  No matter what resolution.


----------



## Littlerock (Aug 20, 2012)

As long as the high-resolution image is detailed enough to need such a large size (in that down-scaling it would take away from good detail), I find no problem with a massive image. Unfortunately, it seems that most images that bypass the size limit would not be visibly diminished in quality by being shrunk. :T 

Case in point; massive sonic recolors.


----------



## Rivercoon (Aug 21, 2012)

If they want to allow larger files fine, but then this fact needs to be advertised along with rules telling people under which conditions they are allowed.  Those that do not meet those conditions should be automatically deleted.


----------



## Spotzz (Aug 26, 2012)

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

I run dual screens @ 1920 x 1200, but the most common resolution now is 1920 x 1080, followed by 1366 x 768 (Laptop most likely).

It would be nice if they would increase the size restriction from 1280 to 1920 or perhaps even a little larger at 2048.

It would be even cooler if they could implement something similar to other image sites, like e621, where the image scales intelligently to the browser.

But I do find it pretty ridiculous when someone uploads a HUGE image and the easiest way for me to see it without having to scroll all around, is to open ONLY the image in the browser so that it scales to fit.  But...it is also equally annoying when I see an image that was produced larger, but when scaled to 1280, becomes grainy or otherwise artifacted.

There has to be a better solution, and there needs to be a better way to enforce the restriction on size uploads.


----------



## Xeras'na Bladewing (Aug 26, 2012)

I'm pretty sure that there's software implemented that automatically resizes the photo or document, and can modify the file size. I may be wrong.


----------



## Spotzz (Aug 26, 2012)

Xeras'na Bladewing said:


> I'm pretty sure that there's software implemented that automatically resizes the photo or document, and can modify the file size. I may be wrong.



On FA the initial upload undergoes a resize, however if you then go back and edit the submission, the resize doesn't happen.  This method totally bypasses the resizer.  The problem is that 1280 is fairly small by typical screen resolution anymore, so a larger upload is desirable...but people are going too far with it and uploading images that are closer to 4000.  Some images, like a comic page do benefit from the larger dimension, simply by virtue of being narrow and tall, but the bulk of the images are a more squarish format and simply will not fit 100% on any consumer monitor at the full size without requiring scrolling or down-scaling.

There are a few options that would address the majority of the scenarios where a larger than 1280 image upload is desired.

One is simply removing the dimension limit, and only sticking to a file size limit. - Perhaps the simplest solution, seeing as the dimension limit is easy to bypass and bypassing it is becoming more and more common.

A better solution would be adjusting the dimension limit to a more reasonable size, to discourage the need to bypass the limit.

Either way the site needs a better method of handling large images on smaller screens, other image sites have approaches that manage to dynamically scale the image to fit the window it's being displayed in, that is something FA is missing.  If they could implement a scaling method, they could then remove the dimension limit, sticking strictly to a file size limit and ultimately make pretty much everyone happy.


----------



## fergus1984 (Aug 27, 2012)

Maximum file size allowed is 4000KB if I am not mistaken.


----------



## hera (Aug 27, 2012)

fergus1984 said:


> Maximum file size allowed is 4000KB if I am not mistaken.



Max file size is 10MB (roughly 10,000 KB)

which for a picture is too much, but for flash it's okay.  Unfortunately, the limit is 10MB for BOTH file types. Try uploading a 9.9MB PNG and it will go through.


----------



## hera (Sep 8, 2012)

So apparently the admins don't care as they themselves violated the image size.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8562024/


----------



## BRN (Sep 8, 2012)

It's generally considered 'acceptable' to violate the limit so long as your work has sufficient artistic merit.


----------



## hera (Sep 8, 2012)

SIX said:


> It's generally considered 'acceptable' to violate the limit so long as your work has sufficient artistic merit.



Then why not make this a feature instead of going around to reupload the image twice?  It almost seems like it's an exploit of a bug that they won't even recognize.


----------



## BRN (Sep 8, 2012)

hera said:


> Then why not make this a feature instead of going around to reupload the image twice?  It almost seems like it's an exploit of a bug that they won't even recognize.



FA's coding is... temperamental. :u

It's an exploit, you're exactly right to say so. But as the exploit is not doing so much harm at the moment - i.e, serverspace isn't being burnt up by 'too many' high-res uploads; coding is functional and the option is available...

It's why I said it's considered 'acceptable' - not that this violation is something the FA staff want to support, it's just that it's accepted within reason.


----------



## Grip the Wolf (Sep 12, 2012)

I hope that it gets fixed, because when I look at those kind of submissions on my iPad, it forces me to zoom in to see the comments, and I usually have to scroll sideways to read them. Is it weird that I sometimes enjoy reading the comments on submissions?


----------



## Saellyn (Sep 12, 2012)

Grip the Wolf said:


> I hope that it gets fixed, because when I look at those kind of submissions on my iPad, it forces me to zoom in to see the comments, and I usually have to scroll sideways to read them. Is it weird that I sometimes enjoy reading the comments on submissions?


I only hope it gets fixed if they increase the maximum allowable resolution. I like my hi-res images.

You need to zoom in like that because the site isn't designed for mobile/tablet use. It's an easy fix, really. If somebody rewrites the CSS for the site they could easily make it mobile friendly because CSS is awesome like that. Unfortunately, most people are way too lazy to do it.

No, it is not weird. I enjoy reading the comments too.


----------



## Nightmare (Sep 12, 2012)

As some said, there is a bypass, but some things really don't need it. The only pieces i'd see as needing to bypass are reference sheets. I can't tell you how many people would send me a reference sheet for something and I can barely make things out because of how ungodly small the details are.
Also their JPG conversion. -.-;


----------



## Saellyn (Sep 12, 2012)

Nightmare said:


> Also their JPG conversion. -.-;


That has to do with older browser support. Personally I think they should kill support for browsers that don't display images properly. Update to a newer browser or GTFO.


----------



## Nightmare (Sep 12, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> That has to do with older browser support. Personally I think they should kill support for browsers that don't display images properly. Update to a newer browser or GTFO.


Just fine with firefox, thanks.


----------



## Saellyn (Sep 12, 2012)

Nightmare said:


> Just fine with firefox, thanks.



That "Update to a newer browser or GTFO" wasn't directed at you, but at people who use obsolete browsers.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (Sep 12, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> That "Update to a newer browser or GTFO" wasn't directed at you, but at people who use obsolete browsers.



IE looks like Firefox, does that count?


----------



## Nightmare (Sep 12, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> That "Update to a newer browser or GTFO" wasn't directed at you, but at people who use obsolete browsers.


Ah, my apologies then.


----------



## Saellyn (Sep 12, 2012)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> IE looks like Firefox, does that count?


Depends on the version of IE and what image you're looking at.
Example: IE 6 and under does not support PNG images with transparency. IE 3 and under has no PNG support.

There are also a few lesser known browsers that don't support certain image types, or only support them with an add-on. Most older versions of the most used browsers have some issues with PNG as well.


----------



## yak (Sep 12, 2012)

I know about the reupload bypass. Intentionally left it there for people who actually benefit from higher res uploads.
FA's infrastructure is not yet ready to handle higher resolution uploads and neither is FA's interface. Work is being done on making it happen. Most likely a hard limit on both the combined amount of pixels and/or file size, whichever is reached first; with a sanity filter on aspect ratios.
S technically it's an abuse, but one we tolerate for the lack of better options.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 12, 2012)

yak said:


> S technically it's an abuse, but one we tolerate for the lack of better options.



I'm sorry, but this has to be the single most blatantly pathetic statement I've seen on these forums yet. The only statement I've seen that tops this would be the one that said "We don't pay sales tax, companies do".

Let me fix this for you,
"So technically it's an abuse, but one we tolerate because we're not going to devote the time to implement a system to prevent it".


----------



## Summercat (Sep 12, 2012)

Devious Bane said:


> I'm sorry, but this has to be the single most blatantly pathetic statement I've seen on these forums yet. The only statement I've seen that tops this would be the one that said "We don't pay sales tax, companies do".
> 
> Let me fix this for you,
> "So technically it's an abuse, but one we tolerate because we're not going to devote the time to implement a system to prevent it".



Or "Technically it's an abuse, but it does not harm the site and mimics a feature we plan to eventually implement, so we'll leave it be."


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 12, 2012)

That's a reason for not devoting the time to fix it.
Sounds a lot better than "lack of better options"

Why isn't Summercat on the dev team?


----------



## Summercat (Sep 12, 2012)

Devious Bane said:


> That's a reason for not devoting the time to fix it.
> Sounds a lot better than "lack of better options"
> 
> Why isn't Summercat on the dev team?


Because FA is a php house, I only know python and the level of skills for my Python programming are on the level of Alkora's when he programmed FA. The only difference is that I'm more aware of the need for basic escaping/sanitizing of input data.

Further, I think think that's what yak meant.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 12, 2012)

_>"Lack of Better Options"_
_>"Does not serve to harm the site so it's low on priority"_

If that's what he meant, he's a little far from the ball park.


----------



## Summercat (Sep 12, 2012)

Devious Bane said:


> _>"Lack of Better Options"_
> _>"Does not serve to harm the site so it's low on priority"_
> 
> If that's what he meant, he's a little far from the ball park.



I think he meant for the users. Lack of better options for the users.

Either way, wasn't worded well. *shrug* But now you know. And knowing is half the battle!

G. I. FUUURRRRR!


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 12, 2012)

Summercat said:


> ...think...
> 
> ...know...
> 
> G. I. FUUURRRRR!



G. I. Furr, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 12, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> If you upload it under size then reupload it it allows you to make the size larger, i wish this was fixed because unless you have a really long comic or really detailed stuff there is no reason your shit should be 4000x4000



Ha ha, pictures from my 12mp camera come out at about that resolution. And about 5mb in size.


----------



## yak (Sep 13, 2012)

Devious Bane said:


> I'm sorry, but this has to be the single most blatantly pathetic statement I've seen on these forums yet. The only statement I've seen that tops this would be the one that said "We don't pay sales tax, companies do".
> 
> Let me fix this for you,
> "So technically it's an abuse, but one we tolerate because we're not going to devote the time to implement a system to prevent it".


I am pretty sure you knew what I meant, but still - here's a bullet style list for convenience:

* I know it's there.
* It is planned to be a feature in the future.
* Currently the FA infrastructure is not capable of handling larger uploads if everyone starts using them, thus it's not exactly advertized.
* Many people however expressed their desire to upload higher res. images with legitimate reasons for doing so.
* Eventually they learn how to, by word of mouth.

Tone down on thinly veiled insults towards the staff and stop conduction yourself in provocative manner.


----------



## maxgoof (Sep 13, 2012)

Does this bypass apply to music uploads as well? Occasionally the chapters of The Beach Bears exceeds the 10mb limit and I end up lowering the bps, which produces a lower quality sound file.


----------



## yak (Sep 13, 2012)

No. There is a hard limit set at the web server level that prevents uploads larger then 10MB.


----------



## Grip the Wolf (Sep 13, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> I only hope it gets fixed if they increase the maximum allowable resolution. I like my hi-res images.
> 
> You need to zoom in like that because the site isn't designed for mobile/tablet use. It's an easy fix, really. If somebody rewrites the CSS for the site they could easily make it mobile friendly because CSS is awesome like that. Unfortunately, most people are way too lazy to do it.
> 
> No, it is not weird. I enjoy reading the comments too.



To be fair, it does seem like the site is increasingly supportive of mobile/tablet browsers. And honestly, I don't have a major problem with it, since it's only a minor inconvenience.


----------



## Grip the Wolf (Sep 13, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> That has to do with older browser support. Personally I think they should kill support for browsers that don't display images properly. Update to a newer browser or GTFO.



I feel the exact same way. When I took Computer Science as my elective last year, I told the teacher that I wouldn't realistically go out of my way to ensure a website would support older browsers. I figure that if someone doesn't bother to update their browser, then it's their own fault that they can't view the site properly. If anything, I would find a way to leave a message that would only show up on ridiculously outdated browsers, and have it say "Update your browser, dumbass!"


----------



## Jameless (Sep 13, 2012)

Nightmare said:


> The only pieces i'd see as needing to bypass are reference sheets. I can't tell you how many people would send me a reference sheet for something and I can barely make things out because of how ungodly small the details are.




this.

the only time i ever bypass the size limit is for my customer's ref sheets. especially if it has a lot of text and tiny details.
otherwise, even if i had to change the submission file, i submit a resized file that is the same size FA would have made it.

it's too bad everyone doesn't show some courtesy when submitting pictures. we wouldn't even need this thread


----------



## SkieFire (Sep 13, 2012)

When my opinion mattered, I always went on the assumption that if the image looked ok (or just slightly short of OK) when in normal mode (not full view) then there was no reason in hell to upload it at 4000x4000

Tall comics/step by steps, character sheets, epic art and things chock full of characters all make sense to go over the limits with. A scanned sketch of a dog penis does not.


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 14, 2012)

Butbutbutbut... I have to see dog penis in the highest resolution possible. Every vein, every bump, every speck of discoloration... :V


----------



## ravewulf (Sep 16, 2012)

The best solution IMO would be a default display size (based on the width of the most common high resolution monitor) that is scaled down with CSS for smaller screens (based on width for normal screens, alternate medium/small image for mobile) and for any image that was scaled down there would be an option to download the original full size version.


----------



## SkieFire (Sep 17, 2012)

Personally I like how DA does it. Click for HUGE, but it defaults to a reasonable size display.


----------

