Posted under General
It seems like a lot of stuff is being tagged as absurdres that's just hires. Like anything larger than a typical monitor, which these days tops out at about 1080 vertical. That's fine for movies, but is crap for art.
11000 x 16000 is absurdres for art, but for instance post #987246 - there's nothing 'absurd' about a mere 900 x 2500. I deal with pics 10x that large every day. It's only 1.2 MB, and it's got enough detail that it's not absurd to render it at that resolution.
Updated by sarusa
The resolution tags are all just indicators that an image is over a certain height or width plateau. Pictures over 10000 pixels either way are what the incredibly_absurdres tag is for.
7HS said:
The wiki for absurdres says "at least 3200 pixels wide or 2400 pixels tall." Are you contesting those criteria as insufficiently 'absurd' or have you found any examples that were actually mistagged?
Well, there's post #988009, but I assume that's just a reactionary troll.
So yes, I guess I'm saying that these days 2400 pixels tall is no longer an absurd resolution, like 10 MB is no longer an absurd size for an mp3.
These tags have existed for years under these specified dimensions, so at the time they more fit the idea of "high" resolution and "absurd" resolution. 1600x1200 being a traditional resolution for CRT monitors, and absurdres being a simple double of that. These tags are just mainly a method to easily search for good sized images, not necessarily what one would define as high and absurd. Besides, they are very subjective, depending on the monitor/laptop the viewer has. Furthermore, it would be fairly tedious to redefine these tags, AND retag all images in this manner.
Yeah, okay, I'm willing to view them as a historical artifact that would be onerous to retag. Which makes it pretty much a useless curiosity, but that's the way obsolescence goes. It's not possible to just rename the tag (I don't know what the schema here is)?
[Edit] Eh, never mind, that's just me being anal. It's no skin off my back to have a useless tag, just let it be.
Renaming the tag achieves nothing, really. They are still "absurdres" in the sense that the image cannot be viewed in its entirety without shrinking on any modern monitor, and the tag is necessary for people who can only search two tags at once and can't afford to do width:>3199 height:>2399 or something similar.
Aristocrat said:
Renaming the tag achieves nothing, really
It would only appease my conviction that there is nothing 'absurd' about a mere 2400 pixels high for good art unless you've grown up thinking YouTube is high quality. But when you're just fappin' anything over 768 is useless. uselessrez?
I personally would like to have the resolution tags be automatically added, and changeable if necessary. And as far how something can be 'absurd', have it so what image has equal or greater than 7680000 (3200x2400) total. Something to that expense, but having to do THAT manually would be an impossible task for SOME people...
ROMaster2 said:
I personally would like to have the resolution tags be automatically added, and changeable if necessary.
This has been suggested many times before, beginning with forum #11886.
That said, searching for height:>=1200 -highres, height:>=2400 -absurdres etc. returns only a handful of recent posts, instead of hundreds of pages like it used to. Either someone tags these regularly, or it seems Albert has already added a process that periodically tags highres and absurdres posts automatically. If he hasn't by now, he probably never will, but since everything's already properly tagged, it doesn't really matter.
Why have it be automatic when ShadowbladeEdge rolls through and updates them every day? Guy's a machine. :P
I agree that the names themselves are kinda...odd. In theory it wouldn't be hard to change the tag name (as long as the definition wasn't touched, so that no posts needed to be added/removed from it)...except I think we've seen from the "great colored legwear tag change" that Danbooru's database will have a hernia when doing such a large scale change.
sarusa said:
It would only appease my conviction that there is nothing 'absurd' about a mere 2400 pixels high for good art unless you've grown up thinking YouTube is high quality. But when you're just fappin' anything over 768 is useless. uselessrez?
Most digital art isn't even intended to be print-quality, let alone the fact that at 300 dpi an image that just barely meets both of the absurdres requirements (3200x2400) still covers a good portion of a normal sheet of 8.5" x 11" paper.
Besides, renaming a tag based on a single user's convictions isn't the best management practice.
Aristocrat said:
Besides, renaming a tag based on a single user's convictions isn't the best management practice.
Oh don't give me that. I accept that it'll stay as it is, but there's no 'best management practice' here. It's just a matter of the amount of work it would take to do it right not being worth it.
7HS said:
Is your implication that there exists an empirical definition of the number of pixels that constitute an "absurd" resolution?
I guess my implication is that 'absurdres' is something that is a value judgement that is guaranteed to change as technology advances. Unlike most of the tags on here, like 'ascot', which are descriptive rather than judgmental - so will still be accurate even 30 years later. But a mere 7MB image is hardly ABSURD these days unless suitability for fapping is the only criterion.
If you wanted to 'fix' it (if it were worth your time), you could either make the tag absolute (6_megapixels) or you could make 'absurdres' an automatic tag that changes with time - or, cheaper, just run through the db every year and retag based on x/y dimensions updated by Moore's Law. That's a trivial db operation, though it might chunk the server into the ground over a million rows.
Updated by sarusa
sarusa said:
or you could make 'absurdres' an automatic tag that changes with time - or, cheaper, just run through the db every year and retag
Yeah, sorry, those are both stupid half-ass ideas because 'absurdres' is fundamentally a bad tag with no empirical meaning, as 7HS pointed out.
