# Proposal: Submission Limits



## Fender (Jul 5, 2007)

We're proposing some simple changes to the upload system to both improve quality-of-life on Fur Affinity and help promote faster site loading! As many of you know, we've got a hard-coded limit of 1280x1280 which has been something of a thorn in the side for many people. Alright, let's admit it - it's been plain ol' frustrating for some.

The original limitation was implemented in attempt to stem large images from eating up more than their fair share of bandwidth, and we're working to improve that! The downside of the limitations were that high res images which benefit from high resolution exposure didn't get their due.

So, we've got something of a compromise.

The plan: extend the resolution cap to 4000x4000, allowing artists to post larger images to suit their needs. Down the line, we'll work to implement a more efficient "preview mode" to compensate for the massive images (preventing them from stretching out the site while still providing a full high res view so they can be witnessed in their full glory!).

To balance that, we'll be implementing hard limits on file sizes to ensure images load fast and load swiftly and to prevent individual images from confiscating huge amounts of bandwidth. Some time ago we ran a poll to gauge what people felt were acceptable file size limits on digital images, and DOUBLED the average to allow plenty of wiggle room for all.

*Image Files:* 1MB limit
*Stories, Poetry and Text:* 1MB limit
*MP3s and Flash:* 10MB limit

Why the limits? Fur Affinity's bandwidth is rising, and with that rise, up goes the costs! To ensure there is a level playing ground for all users, weâ€™ve need to make fair compromises where possible. 

A 1MB file viewed 1,000 times generates a minimum of 1GB of data, and thatâ€™s from the image alone! The bandwidth doesnâ€™t include data transmit for comments, avatars or formatting! In some rare, extreme cases, we've seen files over 3 MB in size with over 4,000 views! Check the math. _That's over 12GB of data transferred_ for a single submission at a bare minimum! PHEW!

With Fur Affinity pushing over 26Mbit on average and more than 200GB of data each and every day, you can imagine that that can get ugly fast. And expensive! As of next month, FA will run $800 a month in bandwidth, and the costs rise each month by an additional $50.

We're working to make things as smooth and efficient as we can without too much inconvenience.

Feedback is welcome, as always!

*NOTE: *The numbers posted above aren't set in stone, so if you disagree with it, post why and back it up with facts!


----------



## uncia (Jul 5, 2007)

Sounds fairly reasonable, IMHO. 1Mb for graphics hits a much sweeter spot in terms of percentages than 500kb did and it should be possible to tweak much of the rest to duck below that. Preview for a 4k*4k image would be pretty much essential - and surprised resolution requirements are _quite_ that high, to be honest. ^^

What about possible reminders, soft limits and nag screens to /encourage/ efficient compression where appropriate, rather than encouraging playing to those not ungenerous maxima?

Still not totally sure on the .mp3 limit since those are _relatively_ low usage and it would be possible to have a 15-25 minute track requiring more than that to be at reasonable quality. Very much the exception to the rule, though, given general musical tastes around here.
Textual submissions are easier to split to any given limit by comparison.

02c in passing, anyhow...
d.


----------



## Fender (Jul 5, 2007)

uncia said:
			
		

> What about possible reminders, soft limits and nag screens to /encourage/ efficient compression where appropriate, rather than encouraging playing to those not ungenerous maxima?


We'll give out polite reminders still, but we have to be sure that there's some method built in the system.


			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Still not totally sure on the .mp3 limit since those are _relatively_ low usage and it would be possible to have a 15-25 minute track requiring more than that to be at reasonable quality. Very much the exception to the rule, though, given general musical tastes around here.


True, but we still have to have some reasonable limitations in place. And 10MB is far, far more than reasonable for most tracks even at higher 160K/b compression.. Few people have songs more than 10 minute in length, so it's a fair compromise.


----------



## uncia (Jul 5, 2007)

Fender said:
			
		

> We'll give out polite reminders still, but we have to be sure that there's some method built in the system.



*nods*. Various ways in which to facilitate that with varying degrees of subtlety... 



			
				Fender said:
			
		

> uncia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite a high percentage of tracks on my own playlist but not so high amongst people here, I'd guess. Impossible to tell at present, since those would get bounced on attempted upload. 

Splitting an audio file is definitely more destructive than for other media and even if carried out would still yield the same total traffic (in 2 or more pieces), so I'd guess the more serious concern is that the extra "limit" would be used to encode at higher (256/320 Kbps) rates "just because that's available". 
If so, and that's deemed too high for FA, it should be possible to bounce those based on the header data, I'd've thought.

Jus' thinking out loud, anyhow. ^^


----------



## Fender (Jul 5, 2007)

uncia said:
			
		

> Splitting an audio file is definitely more destructive than for other media and even if carried out would still yield the same total traffic (in 2 or more pieces), so I'd guess the more serious concern is that the extra "limit" would be used to encode at higher (256/320 Kbps) rates "just because that's available". If so, and that's deemed too high for FA, it should be possible to bounce those based on the header data, I'd've thought.


Well, you have two standards of compression "Internet" and "Audiophile". Internet uploads generally are 96 to 128kpbs, while audiophile range from the 256/320 spectrum to keep it as close to CD quality as possible. But those also start to muliply the file sizes, and that's when we run into issues. 

On my little ferroxy iPod, I've got a few thousand songs, and the average file size per track is about an estimated 6.5MB. So, for most users, 10Mb will be more than enough with some room for leeway. 

There are a few workarounds -- rather than break up the file, users could post a "teaser" to a song and link to the full one. Or post a 128Kpbs version, then link to a lossless copy of the song. While not a perfect solution for files greater than 10MB, they are viable.


----------



## whitedingo (Jul 5, 2007)

Just one question 90% of my stuff is 2mb do I have to recompress whats in my gallery or is it just for new uploads and also will the file compression be like on vcl where the upload system compresses it or do you have to compress it 1mb yourself before uploading.
By the way its a good idea


----------



## uncia (Jul 5, 2007)

Fender said:
			
		

> Well, you have two standards of compression "Internet" and "Audiophile". Internet uploads generally are 96 to 128kpbs, while audiophile range from the 256/320 spectrum to keep it as close to CD quality as possible. But those also start to muliply the file sizes, and that's when we run into issues.



Mhmm... if that /is/ the issue, is it not better to give the top-end rates the boot and save all-round on file size and data transfer rather than drawing an arbitrary 10Mb line which is relatively easy to eat into at 256/320 Kbps?
Anyhow; http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off + having a good encoder is more important in many cases.


----------



## Fender (Jul 5, 2007)

whitedingo said:
			
		

> Just one question 90% of my stuff is 2mb do I have to recompress whats in my gallery or is it just for new uploads and also will the file compression be like on vcl where the upload system compresses it or do you have to compress it 1mb yourself before uploading.
> By the way its a good idea


Older submissions will be grandfathered in. We ask that people bring them down to a decent file size if possible, but we're not going to force it on older submissions.


----------



## Bokracroc (Jul 5, 2007)

You've really fucked over conversation/debate by saying they need to back their 'opinions' up with facts.


----------



## Fender (Jul 6, 2007)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> You've really fucked over conversation/debate by saying they need to back their 'opinions' up with facts.


We need feedback, and welcome it always! However, we need reasons for the feedback. We have nothing against opinions, but it doesn't help us smooth out the procedure if we don't have facts to back up why the changes would be good.


----------



## whitedingo (Jul 6, 2007)

Fender said:
			
		

> Older submissions will be grandfathered in. We ask that people bring them down to a decent file size if possible, but we're not going to force it on older submissions.


Sounds fair enough


----------



## slipstreme (Jul 6, 2007)

For compression problems, I know that the furry art website VCL has compression guidelines to help artists compress their files for bandwidth and slower modem issues. They even have a program that checks whether or not an image is well compressed. Maybe someone there could help FA set up a similar system but set to FA's guidelines? Admittedly this is for visual art only.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 6, 2007)

slipstreme said:
			
		

> For compression problems, I know that the furry art website VCL has compression guidelines to help artists compress their files for bandwidth and slower modem issues. They even have a program that checks whether or not an image is well compressed. Maybe someone there could help FA set up a similar system but set to FA's guidelines? Admittedly this is for visual art only.


We may be able to incorporate something like that down the line, but I think that'd be a better question for yak or crypto to tackle. I wouldn't force anybody to use a system like that, but would recommend it highly.


----------



## yak (Jul 6, 2007)

One thing's for sure - unless the OP specifically disallows compression, all incoming .jpeg's will be ran through jpegoptim.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 6, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> One thing's for sure - unless the OP specifically disallows compression, all incoming .jpeg's will be ran through jpegoptim.


Does that work with PNG?


----------



## HaTcH (Jul 6, 2007)

You don't want to be re-doing PNGs very much .. at all. A lot of people prefer that format because of its 16 million colors thing and an Alpha channel. I was originally re-compressing PNGs to JPGs at my gallery site and people were complaining about color loss etc.

So, Now I just do copying. I even decided to keep toenails (large thumbs) the same format as the input.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 7, 2007)

I don't think coding hard dimension limits in is very good. I've seen some very nice pieces (1) that are 800x30000 pixels. From the bandwidth standpoint, though, a size cap would be perfectly reasonable. (1MB?)

It would also be great if we could do our own "half view" images. Set some limits, like 300x300 and 100KB. But it makes no sense to resize a 35KB 297x295 JPEG image to a 25KB 300x298 JPEG image.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jul 7, 2007)

4000X4000 pixel image sizes?
That's kind of pointless unless you have a monitor that big, isn't it?
It seems to make more sense to me to keep the older size limit and encourage people to put up 'close-ups' of uber-detailed stuff that they're especially proud of doesn't it?

The 1meg limit for text based stuff seems kind of high as well. Something of that size could *very* easily be broken down into chapters and posted.
It'd save a lot of bandwidth by allowing people to read the first chapter of it, and if they find it interesting, they can flip to the next chapter.

As a writer I'd be *more* than happy with 500k, or even half that.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 7, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> The 1meg limit for text based stuff seems kind of high as well. Something of that size could *very* easily be broken down into chapters and posted.
> 
> As a writer I'd be *more* than happy with 500k, or even half that.


That was the original proposed limit, but it got upped a bit (on the idea that users can upload PDFs with art embedded). The numbers aren't concrete.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jul 7, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Swampwulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Any plans on making those PDF's viewable on the site, rather than having to download them?
Seems kind of pointless to host a file that could just as easily be hosted elsewhere with an embedded link in the description.
It'd save bandwidth *and* still allow comments +favs, and so forth.

(Sorry for being a bit off topic here, but it seems kinda related)


----------



## Aden (Jul 7, 2007)

Fender said:
			
		

> The plan: extend the resolution cap to 4000x4000, allowing artists to post larger images to suit their needs. Down the line, we'll work to implement a more efficient "preview mode" to compensate for the massive images (preventing them from stretching out the site while still providing a full high res view so they can be witnessed in their full glory!).



Just a suggestion for the preview res on very large images: How about just an option in the user preferences that dictates the maximum preview resolution for images? Everyone's monitor size is different, so it only makes sense to let everyone pick their own preview size.



> *Image Files:* 1MB limit
> *Stories, Poetry and Text:* 1MB limit
> *MP3s and Flash:* 10MB limit



10Mb for music seems fair enough, 1Mb for images seems a bit high.

Is it possible to implement an approval process? Like, if someone has a long song that's over 10Mb, they could submit it and request an exception to the size cap, which would be reviewed by someone to make sure it's necessary. Same with images or text. The downsides to this are the extra time that admins have to put it and the arguments that may occur.


----------



## HaTcH (Jul 13, 2007)

Question, are thumbnails for images generated on submission or are they generated on the fly, per request? If it was the latter, you could perhaps, compress the images deeper during peak times to save on bandwidth. When the server load lightens up, you can restore the quality. 

Generating the images on the fly is one way to save space, but it doesn't do much for bandwidth, which is what this is all about.. Hmm.. Well.. screw disk space and make a peak-time thumbnail version, at a lower quality and then at off peak times, use the higher quality thumbs. 

Y'can't do much for the source images, but the thumbs are more likely to make a difference bandwidth wise. Thats just my guess. I know, I see A LOT more thumbs than actual images I visit.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 13, 2007)

It takes a very large amount of CPU time to compress an image. With the traffic FA gets, well, I don't think there's a CPU in existence that could handle that load if it were done on the fly.

Since disk space is dirt cheap compared to bandwidth and CPU time, it makes the most sense to store multiple versions of the same image.


----------



## furryskibum (Jul 13, 2007)

I'm not much of an artist, but why would you want to up the size cap to 4000x4000 pixels?  My desktop is over 2600 pixels wide, and that's with two monitors!  I generally only use one monitor at a time, however, which means I only use 1/4 of the proposed size cap at any given time.

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind a size cap that is about four times the size you'd need for web browsing on most monitors?


----------



## Leahtaur (Jul 13, 2007)

...the max size does seem kind of high, now that furryskibum mentions it. Half that would still be generous, I think.

I've never understood why people with large, highly detailed images don't just post one or two, well, detail shots in addition to the main image. If I'm not mistaken, that'd be within the anti-spam rules and they could blow up shots of the character's face, etc.


----------



## Janglur (Jul 13, 2007)

I have a picture that, at 20% of it's original size and 80% compression, is still 4 MB.

The picture is poster sized, and was scanned at it's full 26 megapixel size, which was 54 MB.  We then compressed it shitless, then shrank it, and got 4 MB at 1280x1280

(FYI, my monitors are 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 respectively)


----------



## yak (Jul 13, 2007)

Janglur, 
can i please download that picture of yours and give it a go at the compression, while trying to maintain it's original quality?
I'm having a purely academical interest.


----------



## dave hyena (Jul 13, 2007)

furryskibum said:
			
		

> I'm not much of an artist, but why would you want to up the size cap to 4000x4000 pixels?  My desktop is over 2600 pixels wide, and that's with two monitors!  I generally only use one monitor at a time, however, which means I only use 1/4 of the proposed size cap at any given time.
> 
> Can someone please explain to me the logic behind a size cap that is about four times the size you'd need for web browsing on most monitors?



Some people have uploaded tutorials, or a "how I did this" on a particular image. Showing say... the same image but from line work to finished colours.

That can add up to a few thousand pixels easily, So the intention was to allow people a generous measure for cases like that. And 4000x4000 allows people to go either vertically or horizontally.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 13, 2007)

One of the things I've been wanting to do is upload tutorials which is the only reason I see for the uppage of the cap on image sizes. Those that are just showing off art, I didn't see much need for a large image size. 

I can't wait to upload zip files quite honestly, there were brush tweaks and brushes I've been working on to post as a resource, so it's kind of ironic I can't really use the "Resource" category on FA because of the limitations.


----------



## nobuyuki (Jul 13, 2007)

Hi

A normal sized openCanvas session in PNG format can range from 1mb (in black and white) all the way up to 3MB depending on the size and color.  It would have to be saved in lossy JPG format to fit within 1MB (gross).  Is the 1MB proposal strict or flexible?  I'm hoping that if you do lift the size limit that you'll also keep the file size limit to say, 1.5MB, since that's the largest you can make it under the current restrictions anyway.......


----------



## yak (Jul 13, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> One of the things I've been wanting to do is upload tutorials which is the only reason I see for the uppage of the cap on image sizes. Those that are just showing off art, I didn't see much need for a large image size.
> 
> I can't wait to upload zip files quite honestly, there were brush tweaks and brushes I've been working on to post as a resource, so it's kind of ironic I can't really use the "Resource" category on FA because of the limitations.


I have an idea to bolt on the "attachments" subsystem to submissions, with a limited webspace per user that can be controlled and assigned by the administration to prevent abuse.


----------



## Leahtaur (Jul 13, 2007)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> furryskibum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh! That's absolutely true, I hadn't thought of that. ^-^' The large size limit is perfect for tutorials.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 13, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't mind that, like I said I'd like to provide brush resources, not viruses XD, Trojans certainly are not condoms in the internet world!


----------



## Janglur (Jul 13, 2007)

I only have one of the later post-compression copies, but sure!

where do I send it, tho?


----------



## yak (Jul 13, 2007)

Janglur said:
			
		

> I only have one of the later post-compression copies, but sure!
> 
> where do I send it, tho?



PM sent.


----------



## furryskibum (Jul 13, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> I have an idea to bolt on the "attachments" subsystem to submissions, with a limited webspace per user that can be controlled and assigned by the administration to prevent abuse.



That sounds like a grand idea!

Also, would another rule be in order (OMG RULES XD) to perhaps allow only certain images to hit the cap, such as tutorials and how-to's?  I find images larger than my screen irritating and wasteful, even if I can shrink-to-fit with one click.


----------



## ferretsage (Jul 16, 2007)

> Image Files: 1MB limit
> Stories, Poetry and Text: 1MB limit
> MP3s and Flash: 10MB limit



LOL, you are far too generous! 

It should be:
Image Files: 500 KB -- maybe even 350KB
Stories, Poetry, and Text: 150 KB
MP3s and Flash: 6 MB

One suggestion, is do not place the image restrictions at 4000 x 4000 pixels. If possible, place the restriction at 16,000,000 pixels total. Write the code to multiply the pixel width by height, and if the result is higher than 16,000,000 -- do not upload the image. This way, images that are, say, 15,000 x 800 (12,000,000 pixels) can still be uploaded, even though they use less total pixels than the proposed max image resolution 4000x4000.


----------



## uncia (Jul 16, 2007)

ferretsage said:
			
		

> LOL, you are far too generous!



Did you sanity-check that statement?

Although 15,000x800 is pretty crazy, I followed your request and carried out a quick test scribble (and I mean quick _and_ scribble!) at that resolution.
Without additional tweaking, in order to get within 350kb I had to save at 10% quality in GIMP- i.e. totally unacceptable. At 83% quality (a standard, default, vaguely acceptable yet still lossy setting), the size was 1,017kb. 
q.e.d.?


----------



## Janglur (Jul 16, 2007)

Yeah, 1 MB is a fairly narrow range IMHO for quality art.

Now, no offense, but the majority of the crap-quality.. well.. crap here on FA is fine in 10% in GIMP.  But there are artists of a level where even 4 MB is being stringent.

That's where the problem comes in.  There's no way to filter MS-Paint scribbles from Karabiner/Hardiman/Winger/Palmer/etc. quality artwork.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 16, 2007)

Janglur said:
			
		

> Yeah, 1 MB is a fairly narrow range IMHO for quality art.
> 
> Now, no offense, but the majority of the crap-quality.. well.. crap here on FA is fine in 10% in GIMP.  But there are artists of a level where even 4 MB is being stringent.
> 
> That's where the problem comes in.  There's no way to filter MS-Paint scribbles from Karabiner/Hardiman/Winger/Palmer/etc. quality artwork.



Well also even for quality work most aren't 1mb. However, tutorials if the resolution cap changes can very well exceed that, which is where I honestly see the exception for something that high of a range. I know people will argue about OC collabs but most aren't really needed that high quality.


----------



## foxystallion (Jul 16, 2007)

Fender said:
			
		

> We're proposing some simple changes to the upload system to both improve quality-of-life on Fur Affinity and help promote faster site loading! As many of you know, we've got a hard-coded limit of 1280x1280 which has been something of a thorn in the side for many people. Alright, let's admit it - it's been plain ol' frustrating for some.
> 
> The original limitation was implemented in attempt to stem large images from eating up more than their fair share of bandwidth, and we're working to improve that! The downside of the limitations were that high res images which benefit from high resolution exposure didn't get their due.
> 
> ...




These numbers work very well for me.  These maximums are larger than anything that I've ever wanted to post (although I'm NOT a musician). _* Thank you very much for reconsidering the originally discussed limits!*_ 

I think that if the AUP had been publically discussed with FA page header notification for 90 days _*before being put into effect*_ (as is the case with essentially all Federal regulations) , the final rules would have been better, particularly with regard to the relatively rare  art form of photomorphs.  I would be willing to bet that none of the administrators writing the rules has ever created a photomorph, so some of the photomorph rules are risible.  For example, one is forbidden to photomorph a bat halfway into a bat-dragon, or for an artist to to photomorph tiger stripes on half their face - though putting on the stripes with either makeup or a mask instead of with Photoshop is rule compliant.  Please see page seven of the post hoc AUP discussion for my suggestions for AUP amendments regarding photomorphs.  Thanks again!


----------



## foxystallion (Jul 16, 2007)

furryskibum said:
			
		

> I'm not much of an artist, but why would you want to up the size cap to 4000x4000 pixels?  My desktop is over 2600 pixels wide, and that's with two monitors!  I generally only use one monitor at a time, however, which means I only use 1/4 of the proposed size cap at any given time.
> 
> Can someone please explain to me the logic behind a size cap that is about four times the size you'd need for web browsing on most monitors?



I've done a few single characters 2400 pixels high by about 800 wide that I designed to be viewed from the top down as they come over line by line on a dial up connection.  (Think of it as a bit like strip tease.)  I've also seen multipanel cartoons where the punchline panel was purposely put so many pixels to the right that it couldn't be seen prematurely since scrolling is required to get to it.  Then there are map-like images where one scrolls to follow a route - probably uninteresting to you, but fascinating to Asperger syndrome types like me.  Of more general interest, I've seen very large images containing literally scores of furrys who would be unrecognizably small if they were all displayed on a typical monitor at the same time.  The most common use for this trope is fur con pictures.


----------



## Janglur (Jul 16, 2007)

I'd have to say not to limit below 1600x1400 as the absolute lowest, since many people's screensize is that large.  According to my website hitlist:

2048x1536     1%
1920x1200     <1%
1680x1050     <1%
1600x1200     19%
1440x900      3%
1400x1050     2%
1336x768	     <1%
1280x1024     33%
1280x768	     4%
1152x864	     8%
1024x768	     19%
800x600     7%
640x480     2%

Based on 13,913 individual users since 4/1/04

So anything less than 1600x1200 would exclude nearly 1 in 5 users from seeing an image fullscreen.


----------



## foxystallion (Jul 16, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> Janglur,
> can i please download that picture of yours and give it a go at the compression, while trying to maintain it's original quality?
> I'm having a purely academical interest.



Me, too!  If you do this, I would very much like to see the 4 Mb and smaller versions.   Just put them in your gallery; I'm watching you for your tech data (though your hand study is a lot better than anything that I can draw - fortunately I love doing photomorphs.)

Art without much high frequency data (e.g., sunsets with very dark or black land below) often look unchanged even with a lot of compression.  Art with a lot of high frequency detail exhibits the information loss much more prominently.  I've done some experiments with various amounts of compression on a 2 MB, 4 MPixel photo of  a roll of barbed wire taken on a clear day in direct sunlight.  (I'm a rancher.)  The differences between 2, 1, 1/2, and 1/4 MB jpgs are obvious at every step.  Nevertheless, I understand that a file size limit is needed, and I can do OK with 1 Mb, and have only one image of that size (a commissioned digital art PNG).


----------



## Janglur (Jul 16, 2007)

I'm not an artist, that picture was a comission scanned in at dozens of megapixels resolution in a corporate-grade poster-scanner.  (The picture is sized somewhere between 'huge' and 'fucktarded')  The size was to preserve it absolutely, since the cheap wal-mart $1 cardstock it was on is deteriorating rapidly, and so a friend could analyze the marker-strokes.

I don't have the fullsize versions, but I do have the 1.98 MB JPEG version (cropped 20% and at 80% compression in PSP) which is the best we can do without quality loss.
Yak recompressed it to like 350kb and there was massively noticeable artifacting.  Also, my gallery has FA's current compression version of it, and you can see mild artifacting (less than Yak's test) but horrible color fade.

Email me:
janglur@gmail.com
And be prepared for a ~2 MB email, RAR'd


----------



## ferretsage (Jul 21, 2007)

uncia said:
			
		

> ferretsage said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The previous dimensions are perhaps extremely exaggerated deliberately to prove the point that some pictures could possibly have larger dimensions than 4000 pixels in one direction, but still have an acceptable overall filesize.

How about a more realistic image dimension -- 8000 x 800 perhaps? I pulled up Photoshop, made a blank image with those dimensions, did a quick cloud difference image and threw in a dozen different colored lens flares -- and the filesize for JPEG on High quality was still under 300KB.

The reason I bring this up as an issue at all is because many artists sometimes do an image of many characters in one image and do place a lot of effort into them. It would be a shame to see the detailed work scrunched down, when the original image could have been uploaded to FA in it's original dimensions with a filesize still well under the proposed limits.


----------



## uncia (Jul 21, 2007)

ferretsage said:
			
		

> The reason I bring this up as an issue at all is because many artists sometimes do an image of many characters in one image and do place a lot of effort into them. It would be a shame to see the detailed work scrunched down, when the original image could have been uploaded to FA in it's original dimensions with a filesize still well under the proposed limits.



*nods*

I'll stick with my initial "1Mb for graphics hits a much sweeter spot in terms of percentages than 500kb did and it should be possible to tweak much of the rest to duck below that" comment for the time being, though. Your suggestion of a 350kb hard limit /does/ still seem too tight, IMHO, especially for your own example of those "many characters in one image" at that sort of resolution. Any examples of that in context?

Thanks,
d.


----------



## Janglur (Jul 21, 2007)

Yeah, 350k is just beyond restrictive.  If that were enforced, I think many artists would become upset that their quality was dumped to somewhere between 'crap' and 'total crap'.


----------



## kawayama (Jul 23, 2007)

i don't see why there should be an pixel limit at all. 
just enforce the size limit of 1 MB.

you can make a png image of 8000 x 8000 pixels and still get under 1 MB, if you limit yourself to 2 colours and low complexity (like a logo, or something). i just tried, it's possible (even if tif would be a much better format for that - smaller, too).


----------



## AQB52 (Jul 23, 2007)

I'm no tech,and I really don't want to be whiny,but this kind of bothers me....Most all of my art that I post here is scanned at 300 DPI,which almost always results in files slightly _over_ 1MB.Honestly,anything under 300 DPI and I find that I lose a lot of detail.Can't we keep some wiggle room for files that are , like mine , between 1 and 1.5 MB?


----------



## kawayama (Jul 24, 2007)

the dpi ratio has NOTHING to do with filesize. if you save a 1000x1000 pixel image, the file will be exactly the same size whether it's in 300, 72 or 1200 dpi. dpi is just a way to tell a printer/printing press how large to print an image.

how big the filesize of an image gets is determined by how many pixels it contains, and what compression you use. here's VCL's guide to compressing files: 
http://us.vclart.net/wiki/Compression


----------



## kawayama (Jul 24, 2007)

so, yeah, just to prove it can be done, here's a huge image that's less than 500 K in filesize. 7016 x 9921 pixels at 600 dpi, that's A3 size if anybody wants to print it, lol.

if you for some reason want to upload poster-size graphic art, it is possible to make way larger images than 4000 x 4000 pixels and still stay under 1 MB.

oh, and original image in bottom left corner by CBee.


----------



## uncia (Jul 24, 2007)

kawayama said:
			
		

> 7016 x 9921 pixels at 600 dpi, that's A3 size if anybody wants to print it, lol.



lol x2. Yeah, I should've read that first before spending the next five minutes trying to killtask my browser! :lol: (My own fault for racking-up way too much uptime on this PC ^^)

*nods*, but I'll jus' take your word for that, if that's OK.


----------



## kawayama (Jul 24, 2007)

whut, your browser can't take a piddly 382 K image? 


(oh, and i should mention that saving it as gif changed the resolution flag to 72 dpi, for better results with your printer you should probably change back to 600 dpi and bitmap colour mode.)


----------

