Posted under Tags
I'm new to forum posts so forgive me if this is formatted oddly.
post #11157703 is marked as high/absurd res, and I suppose the file itself is, however it's just a small higher res alteration (censor) to the original piece which appears way lower res compared to the censor bars. Should there be an extra tag to indicate the art itself is of low res (blurry) ?
aliasing, jaggy lines, and other stuff in the "see also" of jpeg artifacts
I don't think the quality is due to censorship. Personally, it looks like something drawn on paint_chat_(medium)
Usually, these types of illustrations are posted as very close-up screenshots
てはいさ said in forum #433287:
I don't think the quality is due to censorship. Personally, it looks like something drawn on paint_chat_(medium)
Usually, these types of illustrations are posted as very close-up screenshots
No, I agree the censorship isn't why the image is low res. I'm saying the censor lines are the ONLY high quality aspect of the image. As in, I think thats why it got marked as high res
NefW said in forum #433368:
No, I agree the censorship isn't why the image is low res. I'm saying the censor lines are the ONLY high quality aspect of the image. As in, I think thats why it got marked as high res
No it's not, that tag just gets automatically added based on image dimensions. As mentioned above, paint chat very often is just a zoomed-in (thus already "upscaled") screenshot of the original canvas. This means it's blurry despite the pixel count. The artist added censorship at whatever blown-up scale the screenshot was taken, so that still looks normal. If they had posted an uncensored version it would almost definitely look blurry in the same way.
Because those autotags are some ancient shit that can't be rid of because of reasons
evazion said in forum #197924:
I've been wanting to get rid of the highres tag for a while. The problem is that while I think the current tag is useless, it does get a decent amount of search traffic, so I'm reluctant to nuke it without giving people an easy alternative. Aliasing it to mpixels:>2 or something else is problematic because aliases are meant to be for real tags, not metatags, and allowing metatags in aliases would cause problems in various places.
The other tags here like lowres, tall image, and wide image are more tolerable because they're less common. Highres is the main problem because nearly 75% of all new uploads are considered highres, which makes the tag useless and is pure tag bloat.
NefW said in forum #433368:
No, I agree the censorship isn't why the image is low res. I'm saying the censor lines are the ONLY high quality aspect of the image. As in, I think thats why it got marked as high res
The highres and absurdres tags are not added based on appearance but automatically added based on image size. The aliasing tag was added which is probably the best way to address this.
LQ said in forum #433259:
aliasing, jaggy lines, and other stuff in the "see also" of jpeg artifacts
jaggy_lines is for posts where the linework was drawn with antialiasing turned off; it has nothing to do with post #11157703. Please take a moment to read wikis before suggesting tags willy-nilly.
wispydreamer said in forum #433372:
The highres and absurdres tags are not added based on appearance but automatically added based on image size. The aliasing tag was added which is probably the best way to address this.
But this image has a lot of anti-aliasing, not aliasing
AngryZapdos said in forum #433728:
jaggy_lines is for posts where the linework was drawn with antialiasing turned off; it has nothing to do with post #11157703. Please take a moment to read wikis before suggesting tags willy-nilly.
I did. It looked like most of the linework might have deliberately been drawn with antialiasing turned off.
After all, the aliasing suggests antialiasing might have been turned off. 
