this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
73 points (100.0% liked)

196

18004 readers
163 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

From less than 700kb in size to more than 8 megs for only double the resolution ? That's why wikipedia feel sluggish sometimes. Why even changing it to a worse file format ? What's the points ?

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The resolution is actually quadrupled by doubling the value of both axes. In this case going from 1500x1424 (2.1MP) to 3504x3327 (11.7MP) multiplies the total number of pixels by 5.4

With the same level of jpeg compression you'd expect it to jump from 700KB to roughly 4MB. Since both images are the same file format, the rest of the file size difference is likely attributable to less jpeg compression being used in the larger image.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

That's why wikipedia feel sluggish sometimes

Images on articles are resized. The original size of the image has no bearing on how fast the article loads.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

All the edit actually did is brighten the image. My guess is they used a sooty image editor.

It's also the same file format.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

8MB is too much for web. 1MB is the upper limit of what i consider ok.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

but what if someone wants to see a picture of someone holding a selfie stick in 4k?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but the article itself uses a downsized version of the image. Actually being able to see a lot more detail when opening the full size one is nice.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

it would be so funny if the larger image had malware in it..

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is nobody going to talk about the file name, the first reason I posted this?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago