Posted under General
Cropped thumbnails are bad for anyone who uses the tag edit script.
You could misrate bottomless characters because you only see their torso. For the same reason, I would mistag post #477535 and similar with bust.
You could remove tags of objects which are not visible in the thumbnail.
For me, the worst thing about cropped thumbnails is that you never know what you get until you click at the image.
Since the thumbnails are actually still re-sized versions of the full image selectively displayed (see piespy's suggestion above), having an option to make cropping optional would be completely trivial, and is definately a good idea.
I don't think having it turned on as the default would be a bad idea though. If it doesn't serve your purposes but you can turn it off, there is no harm done.
I do think the focus issue should be considered as I and OOZ662 note above.
There is another small wrinkle I noticed with this. In the degenerate case of an extremely high or low aspect ratio, the resized-by-small-dimension thumbnails can be extremely large.
For instance, I noticed that the "thumbnail" generated for Testbooru's post #1046237 is over 1.1 MB (this is about the size of the whole original image, and will load for every user while it's on the front page of the post listing). It does provide a more useful view though, as you can see some detail rather than just a line.
The default sample on the other hand is resized by the long dimension and ostensibly should be much larger than the thumbnail, but is only 18 KB (it also ends up as an unusably thin strip).
If you take this to absurdity, someone malicious could potentially break the site by uploading an image of 1x10,000 pixels. doing so would lead to a thumbnail of 150x150,000 pixels (2,250 times larger than the uploaded image). Provided it was say a sequence of random colors (so as to not compress well) it could cause an absolutely massive image to be loaded for every user that viewed the post listing and eat up tons of bandwidth for no good reason.
Updated
Shinjidude said:
There is another small wrinkle I noticed with this. In the degenerate case of an extremely high or low aspect ratio, the resized-by-small-dimension thumbnails can be extremely large.For instance, I noticed that the "thumbnail" generated for Testbooru's post #1046237 is over 1.1 MB (this is about the size of the whole original image, and will load for every user while it's on the front page of the post listing).
One way to deal with this could be to limit the long dimension to 300 or 450 or so pixels, effectively making it so that "normal" images with aspect ratio 2:1 or less (3:1 for 450) will fill the 150x150 box when cropped. Images with a higher aspect ratio will have white bars again, but less so than they do now. These sort of images are relatively rare, so I feel that this would be acceptable.
Took a look again, ya, the cropped images can actually be worst if it's centered in a way that actually cut's the focus of the picture off. Which is made more prevailent if it's solo for instance.
If its a group picture with more than 1 character or a 4-koma, it probably wont' be to bad. But it definitely hurts Solo pictures where you end up with the character's face cropped out.
I've always disliked cropped thumbnails. I understand their utility for images with an extreme height vs length ratio, because a tiny thin strip a few pixels wide doesn't help. But neither goes centering in on ~10% of the image either. Half the time you'll end up with empty space or something.
I mean, i can easily get the gist of http://testbooru.donmai.us/posts/1046229 and likely even tell who it is from its thumbnail if it's done the normal way. But now it's just mostly empty space and some legs. There are a bunch of others like this.
This would only benefit maybe 1% of images, while making everything else a lot harder to evaluate from a glance.
One problem that's been noticed is that you often get the wrong part of an image with automated cropping. How about letting users select the crop region per post that everyone would see, and only automating it when none is defined? Or would that unnecessarily increase server load?
OOZ662 said:
[...]unless there's a way to "tag/mark" the focus of the image to be the center of the thumbnail, ala FaceBook profile images. And that sounds like far too much trouble for the return.[...]
lvk said:
How about letting users select the crop region per post that everyone would see, and only automating it when none is defined? Or would that unnecessarily increase server load?
One day I'm gonna find whoever wrote that Ignore-OOZ662-on-the-Danbooru-forums script and give him a good whack.
S1eth said:
Cropped thumbnails are bad for anyone who uses the tag edit script.
This. All the way, this.
I also second the objections raised by those who like to know whether you're getting a long or tall image, and add that there's almost zero chance of cropping something appropriately representative from such images.
If you do go ahead with cropped images anyway, even just for the most extreme outlier images, then *please* give some sort of visual indicator as to how they're cropped, e.g. by use of CSS borders on the cropped sides.
and try with 200x200 thumbnails?
like this http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8649/42562235d058b5a1460370f.png
this will improve the navigation for pc and phone users, and i like it
