Topic: [Feature] Total (Square Dimensions) Resolution Limit

Posted under Site Bug Reports & Feature Requests

Requested feature overview description.
I was wondering if it was possible to implement a total resolution limit instead of just limiting max height and width. Such a system would use the square dimensions, instead of judging just height and width individually.

For example, instead of the site checking potential uploads like if(height < 15,000 && width < 15,000), it would check if(height * width < 225,000,000). 225,000,000 is of course 15,0002, so it would be equal to a perfectly square 15,000 × 15,000 image, but would also allow any combination of dimensions up to the max square total of 225,000,000.

Of course, there should also probably also be a minimum dimension check, so we don't end up with 10 × 22,500,000 images. I believe a minimum of a 50 pixels for dimensions would be appropriate. I would have suggested 100, but there have been a few sub-100 width post approvals within the last year, as seen here. Alternatively, a dimension ratio limit could be implemented, so that images can't be uploaded if one dimension is 30 times larger than the other, for example.

Why would it be useful?
The rationale for this would that it would allow very tall and narrow comics to be posted, whereas uploaders such as I are currently required to crop and split such comics in order to meet the resolution limits.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
Upload page, upload conditions.

Updated by savageorange

JAKXXX3 said:
Alternatively, a dimension ratio limit could be implemented, so that images can't be uploaded if one dimension is 30 times larger than the other, for example.

+1 on this. -1 on an absolute limit (a 4500000x50 collage of pixel art might be possible, say, but it would still be absolutely obnoxious -- even on a 4k screen, that's 1125 screens worth of scrolling a tiny bar. Crazy aspect ratios are just really hard to do anything very friendly with.)

Suitable ratio limits? 1:30 / 30:1 does seem like a good starting point, if we assume that the smaller dimension is going to be fitted to the user's screen size, we can guess that this would require 20-30 screens worth of scrolling. That's longish, IMO, but not ludicrous.

Updated by anonymous

savageorange said:
a 4500000x50 collage of pixel art might be possible

We already have this in the uploading guidelines:

Small images: Anything below 200px in either direction is likely to get deleted

Updated by anonymous

Lance_Armstrong said:
We already have this in the uploading guidelines:

Small images: Anything below 200px in either direction is likely to get deleted

Emphasis on the 'likely'. A quick search of width:<200 and height:<200 shows quite a few recent approvals.

Updated by anonymous

Yeah. if we accept pixel art, <200px is pretty normal. I think that rule is more directed at preventing CG-ish things with tiny res, or thumbnails.

Updated by anonymous

Anything below 200x200 pixels is pretty much deleted, if either or is under 200px it's likely to get deleted, but with pixel art some leeway is given. Even then 2-3 times nearest neighbor upscale is preferred from artists.

Rule is mostly in place to avoid icons/avatars/cursors/etc, low quality doodle trying to be passed as pixel art and generally content which is for ants with modern screen resolution from being uploaded.

Updated by anonymous

That probably means most PA character art should be disallowed, because honestly, 66px (200/3) in longer dimension is a big sprite.
(that said, most of the stuff that e621 labels Pixel Art is a bit light-on WRT condensation level and use of technique.)

Updated by anonymous

  • 1