File size limit?

This is maybe going to sound a little harsh but I wanna discuss it anyway.
It's about files sizes.

Well, I have to say, I love the absurdres images. I like to have these pictures in incredibly high resolutions. At first I was downloading them to someday create some Arcade Stick art-covers with them, today I'm downloading them just to have a gallery of thousands of pictures with absurdly high resolutions.

What I don't like though are PNGs in absurdres-like resolutions. Not all PNGs in that area but most of them, for example post #537419
This image alone is over 44 MB in size which I feel is really unacceptable. It wouldn't hurt to save it as JPG. Even with minimum compression it'd still be smaller than the PNG version.
This is of course not the only thing where that happened. There have been several pictures with increbible resolutions and huuuuuuuge file sizes in the past, and 99% of them are PNGs. There was even a picture a few months ago with a whopping 101 MB.

So what I want to say is this:
Wouldn't it be smart to create a file size limit? Something along the lines of 20 MB maximum, just so the huge_filesize tag could still be of use.

Sooo...for or against?

Just to add a quick note: There are of course vector_trace PNGs floating around, which I also like. Just wanted to point out that vector traces are more often than not WAAAAAAAAY smaller in filesize than any of the scanned absurdres PNGs.

And as a last note: I hope everyone understands what I'm trying to say. English is sadly not my native language.

See also pool #223.

It's funny you suggest saving huge_filesize. I created that tag specifically to catalog files I thought were absurdly too huge data-wise (i.e. it was actually meant to collect these giant filesize PNG's along with other huge media as opposed to files that were simply high resolution).

I haven't maintaining it however as it's not particularly easy to filter by filesize given that our metatags are based on resolution.

+1. Aside from huge files just being annoying, the lack of file size limits means you could easily DoS the server by having it download, say, a couple dozen Linux DVD ISOs.

There is a limit, I don't recall what it is but it was increased for huge flash files.

Log said:
There is a limit, I don't recall what it is but it was increased for huge flash files.

It appears that limit-compliant images are still problematic, though. Perhaps yet another tag for them?

Perhaps have the huge_filesize by default be on the banned tag list for users? I'm sure it'll end up being resolved through a simple "out of sight, out of mind" solution. There are enough diligent taggers out there to get the appropriate tag on such images when they're uploaded imo.

NWF_Renim said:
Perhaps have the huge_filesize by default be on the banned tag list for users? I'm sure it'll end up being resolved through a simple "out of sight, out of mind" solution. There are enough diligent taggers out there to get the appropriate tag on such images when they're uploaded imo.

I didn't mean to say that I don't like pictures that qualify for the huge_filesize tag or having that tag by default on any users banned tag list. There are other tags that'd deserve the honor of being on there by default.

What I tried to say is that...well, if you have several RSS subscriptions for specific tags like I have then pictures with a filesize over the already unholy amount of 20 to 25 MB destroy the fluidity of surfing on danbooru.
Sounds kinda stupid, I know, but it's the truth.

Also I think that we don't need absurdres-sized PNGs that are not vector traces (I checked yesterday and absurdres sized vector trace PNGs are rarely over 5 MB in size, if ever).
I mean, there's no noticeable difference in quality, so why even bother uploading 50 MB if it could easily be 1/10 or less of that size if one saved the image as JPG rather than PNG?

The huge_filesize posts are the only reason I eventually re-enabled the image sampler, even though I usually prefer to see the original image.

V-King said:
There was even a picture a few months ago with a whopping 101 MB.

That's post #510341, the .jpg converted original resolution version of which is only around 6MB: post #513749

I don't have any problems with the whole filesize limit thing, but it's not really everyday that someone uploads stuff like that. Most huge_filesize posts are probably around 10-15MB (which I don't think is too much of an issue, especially for absurdres and incredibly_absurdres posts) and I'm guessing there aren't more than 30-40 images with bigger filesizes than 20-30MB anyways, all absurdres .png scans.
I could convert them all to .jpg and re-upload them myself if it causes that much trouble for browsing, but like I said, it's only a handful of pics, is it really worth it?

IMHO, if the server can't be DoS'd (and it seems it can't), then if you're not using samples and it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. "I browse those huge files and they're so huge" is pretty absurd a complaint, what did you expect?

People not understanding image resampling: 1 year.

post #232810.

Is it possible to make an account with resizing disabled by default with no way to turn it back on? It's a great solution. I don't understand why people complain.

Dr_Fine_Rolo said:
Is it possible to make an account with resizing disabled by default with no way to turn it back on? It's a great solution. I don't understand why people complain.

Does that actually help? The page doesn't actually reference a smaller-sized image when you have it resized -- it references the original image and scales it. (I checked.) I'm not a computer person, but that sounds like extra work, which would mean even slower...? And even if it wasn't noticeably extra work, it would still take the same time to load.

chainedwind said:
Does that actually help? The page doesn't actually reference a smaller-sized image when you have it resized -- it references the original image and scales it.

Æh? I don't think we're talking about the same thing. It's about sampling, ie. pre-generated smaller copies of images inserted in place of the original, vs. the "Resize image" link in the sidebar. The latter is what you describe, the former is what this discussion is about.

Yeah. Taking post #232810 as an example, if I load that up right now, and right click on the picture and check out properties. It is a little bit over 500kb. That's what I downloaded to my computer. It only took a second.

Since I'm on a tiny netbook, I can click 'resize image' too and it'll get a little bigger by going to its native resolution (850x1228) instead of 100% of my tiny tiny screen.

If I want to get crazy though, I can go up top and it reports that 850x1228 is 20% of its original size. If I view original I've got the whole 7.4MB file that I can send to a printer and varnish it into my wall or stick it to my desk.