I know, we talked about this five years ago. Well, here's the current auto-tags:
lowres (less than 500x500) highres (at least 1600x1200) absurdres / insaneres (at least 3200x2400) incredibly absurdres (any dimension over 10000) huge_filesize (at least 10 MB)
At this point 'absurdres' / 'insaneres' is just 4K high res, not absurd at all. I've got a cheap Dell 4K monitor and so do a lot of other people - and more to the point this size of picture is very common now on artist sites. 1600x1200 is not 'highres' at all any more, it's pretty standard.
Maybe it's time to just start tagging them with standard display sizes - HD is 1280x720 (or up), FHD is 1920x1080 (or up), 4KUHD is 3840x2160 (or up), 8KUHD is 7680x4320) or up. Those won't change over time.
I'm not really following your logic of saying it's not high resolution, but then turning to a system where it'd be labelled high definition. It seems to me that lowres and highres' naming seems fine.
This mostly seems to be an issue of the naming of absurdres, and I have no real issue with simply renaming it to like ultra_highres to better match the terminology used with the display sizes.
I'm not really following your logic of saying it's not high resolution, but then turning to a system where it'd be labelled high definition.
It's a clear, worldwide standard where 4KUHD is 3840x2160 forever and ever. That's the important thing, to lock down the terms to the resolution so the tags never need to change again.
Yes, they fell into the same trap of calling it 'ultra high definition' when that's no longer the case any more, but that's just marketing bullcrap. Just pretend the UHD is random letters, the 4K bit is what's important.
I'm okay with the current system at the moment. Absurdres is still pretth absurd to me since the majority of users out there are either on 1080p monitors or their smartphones that don't usually exceed 1080p.
I'm okay with the current system at the moment. Absurdres is still pretth absurd to me since the majority of users out there are either on 1080p monitors or their smartphones that don't usually exceed 1080p.
I get that, but artists regularly post that size all the time now, even for just sketches on twitter. It's no longer 'absurd', it's common. That's why I posted this, really. Everything I uploaded was being tagged with 'absurdres'.
How about just 'ultrares'? That fits well with the 4KUHD thing and doesn't have the meaningless 'absurd'. 'ultra' is pretty much synonymous with 4K now thanks to that 4KUHD thing.
I think these are good proposals; and tying them to standard terminology seems correct.
I'm using a very bad old monitor right now, 1280 LCD; although I can watch 1080p it's not optimal --- however with the galloping tech improvement it would be silly for me to set universal standards on whatever the old tech I happen to be using now. And maybe phone users could do themselves a favour and buy a pc, a 4" screen can never be as proper for art as even a 24" monitor...
Also, I always select the largest file size of a choice, for posterity. 1600x1200 as sarusa says is not a large picture.
And apart from monitors, broadband is improving also: a huge_filesize file could have taken 5 minutes back on dial-up in 2006, now it takes a minute at 3MB, and will take a few seconds for people with 50MB. Tagging as the proposer suggests is recognizing reality.
10 MB is still too big for most users, especially when you want to see something really quick and not download a program or app to install. Also, who releases 10+ MB art that's not animation?
I like how the 1280x1920 limit is considered high resolution on Tumblr though.
Unless someone shares the same opinion as you do, I don't think the system will change any time soon.
Well, it's certainly not Hitler, and if nothing changes I won't be /wrists, but EVERYTHING in the tags forum is squabbling about this anal retentive stuff, so if we can spend 30 posts on whether hands behind self should be arms behind self, I'm going to argue against tagging 3000x2000 pics with 'absurd' when it's just extremely common now. I'm trying to tell you your cuff is in the soup, and if that's fine with you, then live it proud.
10 MB is still too big for most users, especially when you want to see something really quick and not download a program or app to install. Also, who releases 10+ MB art that's not animation?
The 10MB holds pretty well - that doesn't go up a lot with the resolution, thanks to the compression.
I also think that tag names like absurdres, insaneres and incredibly_absurdres are inappropriate. There is nothing "absurd" or "insane" about drawing pictures on a high resolution (8MP or even 33MP) canvas. I'd call it future-proof decision making. Some artists might even think about digital printing.
If naming or proportionality are the issues here, go with the following:
very low resolution: 720 x 480 = 345600 pixels (ratio = 1.50) <- for the sake of comparison: DIN A4 ratio = 1.4142 low resolution: 1280 x 720 = 921600 pixels (ratio = 1.78) medium resolution: 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels (ratio = 1.78) ~ 1600 x 1200 = 1920000 pixels (ratio = 1.33) high resolution: 2560 x 1440 = 3686400 pixels (ratio = 1.78) very high resolution: 3840 x 2160 = 8294400 pixels (ratio = 1.78) ultra high resolution: 7680 x 4320 = 33177600 pixels (ratio = 1.78) super high resolution: 10000 x 5625 = 56250000 pixels (ratio = 1.78) extremely high resolution: ???
However, users could just utilize metatags (like width, height, mpixels, ratio & filesize) in their search query. This would render all resolution and file size oriented tags useless and we could nuke them.
