I've noticed that a lot of people are fairly unaware about how to tag resolutions while there are quite clear Wiki's for it.
This has come to my attention since my main tagging revolves around tagging resolutions and backgrounds.

This is taken straight from my profile (note: outdated, but still functioning):

This is what I use to fix all those mistakes. However, this is largely nullified because people continue to mistag resolutions on a daily basis, which is the reason I'm putting this on the forum. In the way it is heading, it will not reach a state of stability and control soon.

Resolution tags are factual tags, not bound to thoughts like "Yeah, this image looks pretty big, I'll add absurd_res." They are based on numbers, which cannot be argued over. It has nothing to do with the Tag What You See policy (except looking at the numbers next to the image of course).
People who upload larger versions of images and copy over all the tags should also be aware to update the resolution tags if necessary, especially when replacing a Tumblr post with an official artist page's post, often resulting in much larger resolutions.

Perhaps it's the confusing nature of the numbers and symbol combinations, so I'll explain how it works below.

This is taken straight from the Wiki's about resolutions:

To prevent confusion: the left number is the width of an image in pixels and the right number is the height of an image in pixels (width x height). Underneath is a table of the symbols and their exact definition.

If one or both of the pixel values of the image is equal to or exceeding the number described in the Wiki's, it should have said tag. In the case of low res, if both of the pixel values of the image are equal to or smaller than 500, it should have said tag.

Some examples:

200x200 = low res (lowest accepted image resolution)
225x450 = low res
500x500 = low res
501x500 = No resolution tag
300x750 = No resolution tag
1500x1100 = No resolution tag
1000x1200 = hi res
1600x2200 = hi res
3000x2000 = hi res
600x2500 = absurd res
3400x3000 = absurd res
7000x5500 = absurd res
1500x12000 = superabsurd res

I'd like to have something that limits 200x15000 images from ending up in superabsurd_res, but aside from that it seems pretty concise and reasonable.

I fixed an absurd_res yesterday.

I will use search to find more.

However I don't agree that 600x2500 is absurd_res. It's not absurd, and it could be a comic.

Qmannn said:
Is the fact that the range syntax doesn't work with the blacklist the only reason this is even necessary? What's up with that, anyway? Sets don't work either.

The blacklist is currently client-site (it's actually just javascript). What we can do with it is limited to how much information is already available on the page itself, and unfortunately the blacklist has no way to tell what posts are in a particular set/pool or even favorited.

A server-side one would probably solve most of that, but it'll probably be a while before something like that is implemented.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
7000x5500 = absurd res
1500x12000 = superabsurd res

This still doesn't make much sense to me.
Superabsurd_res is meant for posts that can cause problems if viewed on phones, etc.

But 1500x12000 is 18 megapixels, whereas 7000x5500 is 38.5 and therefore far more likely to crash browsers. :/

I usually clean up all the res tags every couple days/weeks depending on schedule using scripts. I don't see the issue of people not tagging this ever going away.

parasprite said:
I'd like to have something that limits 200x15000 images from ending up in superabsurd_res, but aside from that it seems pretty concise and reasonable.

What if we did something like this to simplify all the res tags:

• low_res
• <= 500 x 500
• hi_res
• >= 3000 x 1000 or
• >= 1000 x 3000
• absurd_res
• >= 6000 x 2000 or
• >= 2000 x 6000
• superabsurd_res
• >= 9000 x 3000 or
• >= 3000 x 9000

And I don't mean as currently is that it just has to meet one. I mean it has to meet both dimensions.

Genjar said:
This still doesn't make much sense to me.
Superabsurd_res is meant for posts that can cause problems if viewed on phones, etc.

But 1500x12000 is 18 megapixels, whereas 7000x5500 is 38.5 and therefore far more likely to crash browsers. :/

I didn't originally write the rules for these tags. They are solely based on the image dimensions described in the Wiki's.
I do agree on lowering the value for superabsurd res to something like 7500x7500, since the absurd res tag encompasses quite a large distance dimension-wise.
Besides, it doesn't take enormous effort to retag it, since not many posts are 7500 pixels and up without superabsurd res tag. Still some work alright, but manageable.

For the rest, I'm against changing the rules for lower resolutions as they are much more common and cause a ridiculous amount of retagging work, on top of confused users unaware of the sudden changes.

parasprite said:
Yay, someone's using my table dtext. ^.^

Seen the numbered nature of these tags, I figured this was a golden opportunity to try it out :3

I actually spent yesterday and today solely tagging hi_res or absurd_res.

It helps to have resolution sizes in mind when uploading images.

GameManiac said:
I actually spent yesterday and today solely tagging hi_res or absurd_res.

It helps to have resolution sizes in mind when uploading images.

It might go without saying, but always tag absurd res before hi res. I've seen it countless of times, people mass-tagging hi res and they forgot to add absurd res (that tag implies hi res and not the other way around).

HotUnderTheCollar said:
It might gon ithout saying, but always tag absurd res before hi res. I've seen it countless of times, people mass-tagging hi res and they forgot to add absurd res (that tag implies hi res and not the other way around).

Yup. Covered that part first.

And seeing how it's all properly tagged for now, I must return to my usual tagging regimen.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
It might gon ithout saying

Why do you use width & height when tagging resolution?
It would make more sense to use width*height=number_of_pixels

If you only care about images where width & height are close to each other, you can use order:ratio to sort the results.
Is it possible to search posts by aspect ratio range, e.g.
ratio:>=1 ratio:<=2
?

Munkelzahn said:
Why do you use width & height when tagging resolution?
It would make more sense to use width*height=number_of_pixels

If you only care about images where width & height are close to each other, you can use order:ratio to sort the results.
Is it possible to search posts by aspect ratio range, e.g.
ratio:>=1 ratio:<=2
?

mpixels:1
Search for posts with 1 million pixels (1 megapixel; a 1000x1000 image has 1 million pixels). Accepts range syntax (see above).

ratio:1.33
Search for posts with a ratio of 4:3. For ease of searching, all ratios are rounded to two digits, therefore 1.33 will return posts with a ratio of 4:3. Accepts range syntax (see above).

Munkelzahn said:
Why do you use width & height when tagging resolution?
It would make more sense to use width*height=number_of_pixels

If you only care about images where width & height are close to each other, you can use order:ratio to sort the results.
Is it possible to search posts by aspect ratio range, e.g.
ratio:>=1 ratio:<=2
?

Although it has a core of truth, having to do that calculation on almost every single image will get tiresome real quick and people will just kick the can down the road and refrain from tagging resolutions.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Although it has a core of truth, having to do that calculation on almost every single image will get tiresome real quick and people will just kick the can down the road and refrain from tagging resolutions.

I'm sure eSix Extend could help with that.
Or the resolution tags could be added automatically by e621, based on width*height.

Using the number of pixels is simpler because you only have to compare a single value to the resolution tag list, as opposed to two.

Lance_Armstrong said:
mpixels:1
Search for posts with 1 million pixels (1 megapixel; a 1000x1000 image has 1 million pixels). Accepts range syntax (see above).

ratio:1.33
Search for posts with a ratio of 4:3. For ease of searching, all ratios are rounded to two digits, therefore 1.33 will return posts with a ratio of 4:3. Accepts range syntax (see above).

Does e621 allow something like
pixels:1000*1000

With range syntax:
pixels:500*500..1000*1000

Munkelzahn said:
Does e621 allow something like
pixels:1000*1000

With range syntax:
pixels:500*500..1000*1000

I'd say to use mpixels:0.5..1 for that, but the ranges don't actually like the extra decimal (for whatever reason).

Noted

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Although it has a core of truth, having to do that calculation on almost every single image will get tiresome real quick and people will just kick the can down the road and refrain from tagging resolutions.

True, I'm sure that most users wouldn't tag those when uploading. But on the other hand, the mpixels:x..y would make those easy to add by tag scripting.

Munkelzahn said:
Does e621 allow something like
pixels:1000*1000

With range syntax:
pixels:500*500..1000*1000

width:500..1000 height:500..1000?

parasprite said:
I'd say to use mpixels:0.5..1 for that, but the ranges don't actually like the extra decimal (for whatever reason).

What if we did something along the lines of:

• hi_res
• mpixels:1..5
• absurd_res
• mpixels:5..25
• superabsurd_res
• mpixels:25..225
• (225 mpixels being equivalent to 15000x15000)

Low res would remain anything with both dimensions less than or equal to 500 in order to avoid the decimal issue in mpixels searches.

People would have to be careful on cleanup due to overlap though. For example, removing superabsurd_res from the smaller sizes you'd want to do search for superabsurd_res mpixels:0..25 -mpixels:25 rather than just the first two terms. Otherwise you'd be taking it off images that need it.

Wodahseht said:
What if we did something along the lines of:

• hi_res
• mpixels:1..5
• absurd_res
• mpixels:5..25
• superabsurd_res
• mpixels:25..225
• (225 mpixels being equivalent to 15000x15000)

Low res would remain anything with both dimensions less than or equal to 500 in order to avoid the decimal issue in mpixels searches.

Might be good, with some adjustments.
post #86667 is 284.1 megapixels. And 25 megapixels might be too low for superabsurd_res, because that finds over 2800+ posts that aren't currently tagged as such.

Huh, never realized resolution tags were that serious. Though I don't tag resolution.

Genjar said:
Might be good, with some adjustments.
post #86667 is 284.1 megapixels. And 25 megapixels might be too low for superabsurd_res, because that finds over 2800+ posts that aren't currently tagged as such.

Guess that image was from before max uploadable became 15k x 15k ... at least I think that's max. I always have trouble remembering that. (That's also the *only* image above 225 mpixels.)

The numbers I gave were mostly pulled out my rear just to give an example of an approach that might be taken.

I don't really know at what point devices start to have difficulty. Figured that between 25-50 should be the low point on superabsurd, but wasn't sure where would be best.

As to amount of images that would need the tag...once the dimensions themselves are out of the equation, there will be a *lot* of tags needing removed/added - no matter what values are settled on.

Ko-san said:
Huh, never realized resolution tags were that serious. Though I don't tag resolution.

You can start helping out from this day on! Just provide a resolution tag (if applicable) with every new image you upload. These are often provided on the source site. If not, they will become visible on e621 when you upload it, which you can then just edit afterwards.