I love the idea Debbie. : ) It would help a bit more. I was thinking that most sites have the 2MB max per say, and a 1.5k would easily fall below that while still maintaining a rather "sample" size of most images. And at the same time helping users in more distant places or with a rather basic internet and pc which would help them still enjoy the exp. But being honest i do think it would take quite a bit of work...And honestly have no idea as to how the "sampling" process even works.
I'm also for this- providing a middle quality between sample and 50MB pngs saves bandwidth, and seems to be a win-win for imouto and users.
I never download pictures unless I want fix it or dl the whol pool (In these cases i need full size ones), so it's doesn't matter with me. But still a good idea. :D
http://moe.imouto.org/forum/show/1829?page=5
at least we need to wait untill jpeg pool zips completed..
at least we need to wait untill jpeg pool zips completed..
You can always download and then resize, it makes it better for both the server and the leecher IMO. Well I can't say how it goes for the bandwidth but having 3 pics instead of 2 will strain it (the servers so to speak) perhaps even more.
Yes I've been doing this for years and I can't say it's problematic at all?...
fiber/broadband is dirty cheap these days and same goes for HDD space. And you can't say NO to this, you just can't. I started with PC for real back in 2002. 120gb cost like 200€. And now it's 100€ or less for 1tb....
I'm an audiophile so space is necessary not a luxury
Yes I've been doing this for years and I can't say it's problematic at all?...
fiber/broadband is dirty cheap these days and same goes for HDD space. And you can't say NO to this, you just can't. I started with PC for real back in 2002. 120gb cost like 200€. And now it's 100€ or less for 1tb....
I'm an audiophile so space is necessary not a luxury
Yeah, the bandwidth of visitors isn't a big problem, but server bandwidth is still quite expensive. And hosting a middle-quality jpg version only require more hdds, which are quite cheap nowadays. So I think it would be helpful to create a 4MB or so version for some really large pictures.
Waiting until the download of each heavy PNG file you want is over, then opening Photoshop, loading the PNG, resizing one by one and saving again... Doesn't sound much great... Oh well.
That doesn't make a difference for people with such marvelous HD like yours, Feito, but I believe most users don't have such a machine.
That doesn't make a difference for people with such marvelous HD like yours, Feito, but I believe most users don't have such a machine.
6-10 years? That's about how old your machine is (no hard feeling) but...
It takes about 10 seconds to do what you just said. I assume you have at least 256mb of RAM and 200kb~ download/rate? :O
It takes about 10 seconds to do what you just said. I assume you have at least 256mb of RAM and 200kb~ download/rate? :O
Those would be the wonderful
computers series of the 21sr century. I believe Debbie speaks of the Old ones like 1996 right Debbie? And I got a Windows from 1993 and it's about as slow as what Debbie is describing so I can relate
a bit. When I compare to my néw apple.
computers series of the 21sr century. I believe Debbie speaks of the Old ones like 1996 right Debbie? And I got a Windows from 1993 and it's about as slow as what Debbie is describing so I can relate
a bit. When I compare to my néw apple.
oh... is this why the LQ option was taken out?kiowa said:
Yeah, the bandwidth of visitors isn't a big problem, but server bandwidth is still quite expensive. And hosting a middle-quality jpg version only require more hdds, which are quite cheap nowadays. So I think it would be helpful to create a 4MB or so version for some really large pictures.
Until 2 weeks ago, I had a 256 MB RAM computer.
And, yes. Unfortunately, a "good" internet here, without abusive price, downloads at a 40~150 kb rate, and, when I'm lucky, it gets to 200.
I understand you and Chikane have outstanding PCs and internet conexions, but this is not the majority, it never was. Although my PC is good now, 3 GB of RAM, the internet still doesn't help.
Besides, who the hell would resize every PNG downloaded, then save in JPEG, then delete the PNGs one by one? Enhancing the resizing sounds like a better idea... Or at least I think like this.
Ok, I see this is way too complicated to be done. Nevermind then. I guess I can never come up with a good idea.
And, yes. Unfortunately, a "good" internet here, without abusive price, downloads at a 40~150 kb rate, and, when I'm lucky, it gets to 200.
I understand you and Chikane have outstanding PCs and internet conexions, but this is not the majority, it never was. Although my PC is good now, 3 GB of RAM, the internet still doesn't help.
Besides, who the hell would resize every PNG downloaded, then save in JPEG, then delete the PNGs one by one? Enhancing the resizing sounds like a better idea... Or at least I think like this.
Ok, I see this is way too complicated to be done. Nevermind then. I guess I can never come up with a good idea.
owwww Sowwie Debbie-chuan, it's just fiber has existed since before I even used the internet so it get's kinda like "oh I didn't know it was like elsewhere". Thinking like hey it's Europe and all that
I don't know how difficult things are on the server end, so I can't help sith that, but a medium size of pictures might be nice for some people. I have a relatively fast connection so it doesn't bother me. I do remember the days of 56k dial up though. If you use windows and don't want to open photoshop to resize a pict, you should get the windows power toy, image resizer. Just right clic an image, pick a size and it makes a copy at that size. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx
Nope, it's ok Feito. I understand your side.
Oh, and thanks muchly Oldwrench. I'm gonna look out for that!
EDIT: Oh crap... I don't have Windows XP.
Oh, and thanks muchly Oldwrench. I'm gonna look out for that!
EDIT: Oh crap... I don't have Windows XP.
Debbie it appears that the changes in a area you've specified have went through. Great news for ya! Xd
Oh - Well, I've got 2 sample pictures that I already had saved from some time ago, and 1 of them had 1 px more in a side, and the other 2 px more in both sides.
Both of them had 1000 in height.
... Well it's something.
Both of them had 1000 in height.
... Well it's something.
I just put all the pngs on the same folder, then open Photoshop and use File > Scripts > Image Processor > Save as JPEG :)Debbie said:
Besides, who the hell would resize every PNG downloaded, then save in JPEG, then delete the PNGs one by one? Enhancing the resizing sounds like a better idea... Or at least I think like this.
(This is in CS2, don't know about other versions of PS)
You could just use some file converter and move em all to jpeg : )
Debbie
Resized pictures... Bigger?
It would be very useful for me, but I don't know about the others; please state here if you believe this is a good and useful idea.
Well, most of the pictures here are above 3 MB, and, we just have to agree - it's a lot for a single picture. While it's very handy to have a few pictures you really like on a nice size, say, 10 MB, it's impossible to download and save every picture you like on this size. Or, at least, not easy.
And for people who doesn't have a super-computer/super-internet and has more than 3.000 manga pictures on the PC, saving them on original size is a no-no.
Then, we have the automatic resize here on Moe: If I'm not wrong, the site resizes the picture until one of its dimensions reach 1000 pixels.
The picture gets lighter, not a doubt left about it, but on the other side, it gets a bit too small.
I was wondering if it's possible to change the resized size for a bit bigger, at least a bit. This way, the picture doesn't get too small, but not as big as the original - and still in jpeg format, what makes it smaller. I'm not suggesting this to people who can afford the original files, and yes for people like me, who have certain limitations regarding HD and internet.
I believe that 1500 or something would already do very great.
What do you guys think? I fully understand if that's not possible. I just came out with this nice idea. I just wanted to post it here, because I never help with anything at all. Maybe this could make a little, but good change.