Shizashi said:
I don't go there so I don't really care about them.

I don't go there either, but...
I still don't get the point, why did they do it.

Like, what.

Debbie said:
I don't go there either, but...
I still don't get the point, why did they do it.

Like, what.

Legal pressure?

Granted, I don't know why that'd be, but...

They asked Minitokyo to stop getting content from there and uploading it on their site. Maybe Minitokyo is violating something of Pixiv's policies. So the admin (or whoever is in charge ) of Minitokyo accepted their request.

We may be violating something as well but no one official from Pixiv has contacted admin2 or cyanoacry and asked to remove any content of Pixiv yet.

I just assume this so no bashing on me.

I don't know Japanese (yet) to go ad read their policies.

If they are an official site, they sure do have private policies, terms of use and such.

as I wrote, pixiv do something instead of the artists is against their policy..

I think it's simple. If the "non-pro and/or non-japanese artists" art look good, let it stay.

Anyone would prefer to see good art from either DA or Pixiv users than some of the "pro japanese artists" art like takeuchi_naoko, mentioned earlier by midzki.

It'd be unfair to delete good art from "non-pro non-japanese artists" while letting those Sailor Moon images stay only because they were drawn by a japanese artist.

"Respect to the artist"

"They are not scans"

"Uploading something you didn't scanned/produced is the same as stealing"

blooregardo said:
"Respect to the artist"

"They are not scans"

"Uploading something you didn't scanned/produced is the same as stealing"

'Collective dumbfuckery'

blooregardo said:
"Respect to the artist"
"They are not scans"
"Uploading something you didn't scanned/produced is the same as stealing"

Radioactive said:
'Collective dumbfuckery'

It's on the internet, it's for the world.
Bitching around because of imageboard sites is stupidity.
Don't want your pictures anywhere else? Don't upload it.

Imageboard sites are powerful free advertising. Artists can only take benefit of them. Those who resize their works too 300x400 and still complain of "art thief" really gets on my nerves.

Can I just think only few cares who draw it or where draw it, and no need to add new rules?

edit: I'm gonna unstick the topic if there is no more opinion

I'm sorry, midzki... That's it for me.
I believe such an important topic deserved more attention...

So gathering everything that was said, what was the decision?

midzki said:
Can I just think only few cares who draw it or where draw it, and no need to add new rules?

edit: I'm gonna unstick the topic if there is no more opinion

I'd just leave it as it is. Unless something dire enough plagues us while we're working it.

AZD-A9S said:
So gathering everything that was said, what was the decision?

Ask me the question, and I'll give you the answer.

midzki said:
I'm gonna unstick the topic if there is no more opinion

This is an important enough subject that we should keep it as a sticky. Digital art is where everything is heading toward.

I really don't know what will happen to artbooks...

people do nothing if there is no deadline.

Radioactive said:
Ask me the question, and I'll give you the answer.

I don't know why but...that sounds scary. Maybe I'm just over-thinking things?

Well anyway, is all Pixiv images in jpg or do some artists have them in png format? I haven't seen one in png yet...at least I don't think I have.

I guess it depends on the artist?

midzki said:
people do nothing if there is no deadline.

Hey, this is such a cool saying. I'm gonna write it down.

Radioactive said:
I guess it depends on the artist?

I see no difference between a 12-quality JPEG (PS) and a PNG. So this is why I save my own things on JPEG. Not only my works, but also all the +20 MB files I get here.
Well if someone can ever show me anything better about PNG, I'll change my mind. Until now, the only difference I could notice is file size.

Anyways, if artists plan on exchanging artbooks for digital releases, they'd better change their ideas about image dimensions. Or else things would get really terrible.

Radioactive said:
I'll have to disagree.

There are some really great images <1000 and we really shouldn't discriminate against them.

Tying back to the res thing a couple months ago- I honestly think we should. The key words you write are "really great". In short

• Posting digital originals of high resolution and good artwork: awesome.
• Digital originals under 2 megapixels: it'd better be (or I wish people would choose) the cream of the crop/the best of the best of the best or ones the poster really, really, really likes. detailsPart of my negative feelings towards <2 mpixel images is the sourcing part. Even with vanilla-chan's help, it's time consuming and frustrating, and did I mention "time consuming"? to go find original pages, translate names and make profiles.
• dA specifically: it has a bad rep, but a dA-only image shouldn't be deleted just because it was posted there. Bad artwork is a fine reason for deletion, just say "bad/terrible art" in the reason box.

I agree with Aurelia that a more discerning approach should be taken for posting. Just like the board's approach to tagging, "less is more". Sifting through 100 poor to mediocre images from pixiv/dA to find one gem doesn't jive with the "high-quality scan" reputation of the board.

Aurelia said:
Digital originals under 2 megapixels:

What will be the easiest way for uploaders to identify images < 2 megapixels? We can enforce that rule.

van said:
Sifting through 100 poor to mediocre images from pixiv/dA to find one gem doesn't jive with the "high-quality scan" reputation of the board.

Was that comment aimed at me? For every image I upload I skip 5 - 10 low-res/poor quality images. What you consider poor/mediocre may not be the same for the next person.

Radioactive said:
What will be the easiest way for uploaders to identify images < 2 megapixels?

Answering my own question. http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel_aspect.asp?mp=2

( http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp )

Mods - Comments on this please.

Radioactive said:
Was that comment aimed at me?

No, I'm just not a fan of pixiv in general. Sayori is an exception though :3

Radioactive said:
What will be the easiest way for uploaders to identify images < 2 megapixels? We can enforce that rule.

tag lowres with the mass edit or the tag script

Anyone want to volunteer to do this? I'm a bit short on time at the moment.

I'll setup lowres as a fault tag.

I had forgotten you could search using mpixels:<2

Anyway, unless there are any objections can someone tag the lowres images?

Radioactive said:
I had forgotten you could search using mpixels:<2

Anyway, unless there are any objections can someone tag the lowres images?

I'll go on and do an attempt on that and anyone willing to help i'll gladly accept help.

Also

Radioactive said:
Answering my own question. http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel_aspect.asp?mp=2

( http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp )

Mods - Comments on this please.

I use to make wallpaper back in the days and this was basically the formula that the site admin used when we were submitting them. At the moment i agree with it.

as the size i always used was 1600x1200

Also so the basic rule i should follow is resolution over file size then, Radio? Res - Files Size to 2mb?

*I won't be able to start this till tonight as i'm about to go out.

Radioactive said:
Anyway, unless there are any objections can someone tag the lowres images?

No, The site is for high res images, instead of tagging them I'd prefer delete them if we are going to raise the standard now. Btw, mpixels:<2 are 1950 pages.

blooregardo said:
No, The site is for high res images, instead of tagging them I'd prefer delete them if we are going to raise the standard now. Btw, mpixels:<2 are 1950 pages.

If that is so then we might as well ban pixiv and 95% of their hosted illustrations. As many of them wouldn't meet the requirements. I'm much starting to think like midzki (or whoever said this) "quality over size." If we plan on constructing a new rule that plan to stand firm on and enforce upon, we need to rethink what this site is about. Uh.... "high quality, high res" yes, yes, I know. Now please expand.

AZD-A9S said:
I don't know why but...that sounds scary. Maybe I'm just over-thinking things?

Well anyway, is all Pixiv images in jpg or do some artists have them in png format? I haven't seen one in png yet...at least I don't think I have.

If you're willing to sell yourself out to the internet there's nothing else for you to show to the world. Otherwise full resolution originals would be very abundant on the internet. ^^

aoie_emesai said:
I'm much starting to think like midzki (or whoever said this) "quality over size."

You're not alone on this, my friend~

If we plan on constructing a new rule that plan to stand firm on and enforce upon, we need to rethink what this site is about. Uh.... "high quality, high res"

Very well said!
Dimensions are important. Resolution is important.
Quality is the best.

So what are your opinions about this? Any ideas?

Why either/or? How about both? To be accepted here, an image must be high quality *and* high resolution. This site doesn't (nor do I think it should) archive the internet, it just takes the cream of the crop.