We shouldn't be blanket-deleting these images. In some cases, sure, but when the "full" size is something as huge as 33.5 MB, there's merit in keeping the 2.4 MB version...
Posted under General
RaisingK said:
We shouldn't be blanket-deleting these images. In some cases, sure, but when the "full" size is something as huge as 33.5 MB, there's merit in keeping the 2.4 MB version...
True, but danbooru already has a sample system in place to view a lower res version of the image. So there should no reason to keep around a smaller size version just because it's smaller size.
As you mentioned yourself "This isn't any different than pixiv thumbnail/pixiv manga sample, so they should be deleted when the full size also exists on here.".
Most of the source:*yande.re/jpeg/* images also fall into this category, since yande.re limits the jpeg versions of images to 3500x3500.
Might also be worth mentioning forum #77398.
DakuTree said:
True, but danbooru already has a sample system in place to view a lower res version of the image. So there should no reason to keep around a smaller size version just because it's smaller size.
Danbooru's samples are good for browser viewing but not for saving to harddrive. If the difference is as large as 30 MB, I'd rather save the Yandere/etc sample.
DakuTree said:
As you mentioned yourself "This isn't any different than pixiv thumbnail/pixiv manga sample, so they should be deleted when the full size also exists on here.".
Most of the source:*yande.re/jpeg/* images also fall into this category, since yande.re limits the jpeg versions of images to 3500x3500.
Indeed. I forgot about how big the full sizes could get on those sites. PNG Overkill and all that. And these images are scans.
DakuTree is annoying with that deletion of older posts, especially not double-deleting it. So far, the standard was to keep the older low-res pics and link them as child posts, so I see no reason to change it. On the other hand, imagine a person new to danbooru who has 10 nice uploads and YOU override them with another 10 exactly the same arts, deleting these 10 like unaccepted or crappy works.
HNTI said:
DakuTree is annoying with that deletion of older posts, especially not double-deleting it. So far, the standard was to keep the older low-res pics and link them as child posts, so I see no reason to change it. On the other hand, imagine a person new to danbooru who has 10 nice uploads and YOU override them with another 10 exactly the same arts, deleting these 10 like unaccepted or crappy works.
Easy now. DakuTree doesn't have the power to double-delete, double-deletion is something to be done only very rarely, and this is Danbooru's policy with pixiv thumbs, so this isn't exactly out of the blue.
And they aren't exactly the same; the dimensions and filesize are both substantially bigger. That's what my issue was (at least for some cases).
Updated
Even if it still leaves an issue of unfairly counted in deleted posts for users with status lower than Contributor. How you going to solve this out, huh ?
I guess that pixiv samples don't have resolution 3k*2.5k -_- :
post #756807 <- deleted
post #1179099 <- newly uploaded
RaisingK said:
I forgot about how big the full sizes could get on those sites. PNG Overkill and all that. And these images are scans.
It would be better if forum #77398 was resolved first. Preferably converting any images over 20-30MB~ and leaving a note in the comments saying it was converted/original MD5.
HNTI said:
On the other hand, imagine a person new to danbooru who has 10 nice uploads and YOU override them with another 10 exactly the same arts, deleting these 10 like unaccepted or crappy works.
True, if there was a simple way to just replace the image, rather than upload the new one and delete the old one, I'd be doing that..but there isn't.
Even if it still leaves an issue of unfairly counted in deleted posts for users with status lower than Contributor. How you going to solve this out, huh ?
The images been deleted so far are only about 60~ spread across a few users, most of them being contributor. If for whatever reason it screws up someones upload limit, that can usually be fixed by asking a mod.
I second leaving the yande.re samples in place. The reason pixiv samples are never tolerated is that pixiv images are digital, and therefore bigger resolution always means more image information. yande.re images are (mostly) scans, so bigger resolution does not necessarily mean more information. All it guarantees is bigger filesize and more visible scanning artifacts. yande.re is a site focused on scans, for which these massive pngs are suitable. Danbooru is not.
Whichever way this goes, whoever is doing this NEEDS to start using the scan tag. It really annoys me how frequently this tag is forgotten, despite its importance.
Coconut said:
I second leaving the yande.re samples in place. The reason pixiv samples are never tolerated is that pixiv images are digital, and therefore bigger resolution always means more image information. yande.re images are (mostly) scans, so bigger resolution does not necessarily mean more information. All it guarantees is bigger filesize and more visible scanning artifacts.
Fair enough on leaving the HQ jpg versions. Although they are restricted to 3500x3500, they tend to be much smaller filesize. As for the imageboard_sample's, these should be replaced and deleted, since they are restricted to a lower 1500x1500.
Also not all of the bigger resolution images have scanning artifacts. Quick example would be post #1003703 (3500x2480|3.4MB) via the full-size ver. (11414x8087|53.2MB). Although the filesize is rather insane, I can't see any quality loss compared to the jpg ver.
Regardless if they are scanned images or not, they are resized/lowerres versions of the original.
On a somewhat related note, do we have a tag like scanning_resolution? Might be useful for these huge sized images.
This whole thing yet again comes back to forum #77398. I'm assuming if these images were lower filesize, there wouldn't be so much of a problem with them.
Whichever way this goes, whoever is doing this NEEDS to start using the scan tag. It really annoys me how frequently this tag is forgotten, despite its importance.
The only problem with that is, yande.re lacks a proper scan tag. Meaning there isn't an actual way to tell if it's scanned or not, unless the image has either a pool or some kind crease/scanning_artifact tag. I'm guessing everything under nyantype, megami & crease should be tagged with it though.
DakuTree said:
The only problem with that is, yande.re lacks a proper scan tag. Meaning there isn't an actual way to tell if it's scanned or not, unless the image has either a pool or some kind crease/scanning_artifact tag. I'm guessing everything under nyantype, megami & crease should be tagged with it though.
I generally take most anything absurdres from yande.re as a scan. I spend an inordinate amount of time nowadays fixing images with creases, but me remembering to tag scan is usually 50/50. I agree on nyantype, megami, and dengeki moeou added on top of that, finishing up with crease should be tagged with scan.
encountered twitpic_thumbnail and deviantart_thumbnail and revisited forum #62605 recently. should this be eligible for the imageboard_sample tag too? thanks.
ghostrigger said:
encountered twitpic_thumbnail and deviantart_thumbnail and revisited forum #62605 recently. should this be eligible for the imageboard_sample tag too? thanks.
Best to keep them as separate tags for now.
imageboard_sample is mainly for danbooru-like sites(konachan/yande.re etc.)
Found a few more problematic sample sites to add to this...
Tinami seems to have sample versions of images but there isn't any way to search them due to the URL being similar to full-size.
Sample: (720x576) http://img.tinami.com/illust2/img/950/4fd29c51d2d25.png
Fullsize: (800x640) http://img.tinami.com/illust2/img/20/4fd29c5128e2c.png
Animepaper also seems to have a sample/lower-res system..
post #1183687 (2242x3113) is one of the lower-res versions of this (4484x6224)
Considering there is no source URL for any of these, impossible to search for these aswell.
Also since it wasn't said, should imageboard_samples still be deleted?
Fair enough for keeping the highres jpg versions , but there doesn't seem to be much reason to keep these considering they are restricted to 1500x1500.
A few Nijie samples have been popping up ( source:*nijie.info/nijie_picture/main/* ).
Might be an idea to see if this can be regex'd like pixiv since the only difference is the "main/" in the URL.
Is there anyway we could have it to where it will fetch the PNG version when attempting to upload the JPEG version from Yande.re or Konachan? I've sent messages to some users about uploading JPEG's from these sites when the original is PNG, though it looks like this is done accidentally rather than intentionally sometimes.
EB said:
Is there anyway we could have it to where it will fetch the PNG version when attempting to upload the JPEG version from Yande.re or Konachan? I've sent messages to some users about uploading JPEG's from these sites when the original is PNG, though it looks like this is done accidentally rather than intentionally sometimes.
Are these two urls an example of what you're talking about?
https://yande.re/jpeg/2c6876ac2317fce617e3c5f1a642123b/yande.re%20292092%20hatsune_miku%20tid%20vocaloid.jpg
https://yande.re/image/2c6876ac2317fce617e3c5f1a642123b/yande.re%20292092%20hatsune_miku%20tid%20vocaloid.png
In other words, replacing /jpeg/ with /image/ and .jpg with .png whenever both are present, or doing nothing to the url otherwise?
EB said:
Is there anyway we could have it to where it will fetch the PNG version when attempting to upload the JPEG version from Yande.re or Konachan? I've sent messages to some users about uploading JPEG's from these sites when the original is PNG, though it looks like this is done accidentally rather than intentionally sometimes.
I know that, on occasion, I've uploaded the JPG version when both files were the same resolution, but the PNG's size was well over 10Mb.
There's a common problem, with images sourced from the E-Hentai Galleries, of uploaders going with the easily linkable resized (and noticeably artifacted) images over the original size, which doesn't appear to be easily linked. Is there any way to deal with this other than having to send a message to every new user that does this? Seems to keep coming up.
