I have been seeing a lot of image getting bigger and bigger over time. I have seen this image that of wolf and krystal from starfox of one that the size 1139x1280 then there the other one that the same image but much bigger about 3x the size 4005x4500. now the do to this resized one i saw this next to the size of the image (5.8 MB) to me bigger is never better as this one take more space then the smaller one that is (195.6 KB). It best to think about what your doing before resizing the image it will take more hard drive space then the one from the Source.

In my experience on e6, the larger sized ones aren't just resized versions of the smaller image. Instead, they're usually the other way around, with the bigger one being the image's original size (or at least nearer to it) and the smaller one being the resized version.

The difference is that an image which has been digitally enlarged losses a lot of detail and looks fuzzy or blurry at full size, whereas one that was originally that big contains more detail than the smaller one and still looks good at full size.

I'd say that more detail is always better, especially considering that modern hard drives are almost always capable of handling a few extra MB. I have a 3 terabyte hard drive containing thousands of high def images, and it's only about 1/3 full, the hard drive only set me back $100.

ZombieHunter said:
I have been seeing a lot of image getting bigger and bigger over time. I have seen this image that of wolf and krystal from starfox of one that the size 1139x1280 then there the other one that the same image but much bigger about 3x the size 4005x4500. now the do to this resized one i saw this next to the size of the image (5.8 MB) to me bigger is never better as this one take more space then the smaller one that is (195.6 KB). It best to think about what your doing before resizing the image it will take more hard drive space then the one from the Source.

I usually supposed that the images with larger resolution in this site just has more detail. That's why the smaller images are deleted when a higher resolution are posted. Do people really just resize the picture just to post higher resolution pictures? If that is true it could be a problem. Are you sure people just resided the images or are they posting better versions of it?

blackest_vulture said:
I usually supposed that the images with larger resolution in this site just has more detail. That's why the smaller images are deleted when a higher resolution are posted. Do people really just resize the picture just to post higher resolution pictures? If that is true it could be a problem. Are you sure people just resided the images or are they posting better versions of it?

ya is there a point to making the images bigger there not change in the image when they repost it.

Tokaido said:
In my experience on e6, the larger sized ones aren't just resized versions of the smaller image. Instead, they're usually the other way around, with the bigger one being the image's original size (or at least nearer to it) and the smaller one being the resized version.

The difference is that an image which has been digitally enlarged losses a lot of detail and looks fuzzy or blurry at full size, whereas one that was originally that big contains more detail than the smaller one and still looks good at full size.

I'd say that more detail is always better, especially considering that modern hard drives are almost always capable of handling a few extra MB. I have a 3 terabyte hard drive containing thousands of high def images, and it's only about 1/3 full, the hard drive only set me back $100.

oh you got 3 Terabytes of hard drive space. Oh yipe that not a good point for images to be resized.

Do know the image was original size is this 1139x1280 (195.6 KB) I even look at the one posted on FA same size. Then someone posts the same image that 4005x4500 (5.8 MB)

ZombieHunter said:
ya is there a point to making the images bigger there not change in the image when they repost it.

oh you got 3 Terabytes of hard drive space. Oh yipe that not a good point for images to be resized.

Do know the image was original size is this 1139x1280 (195.6 KB) I even look at the one posted on FA same size. Then someone posts the same image that 4005x4500 (5.8 MB)

The bigger image (I guess you're talking about post #526030) is of legitimately higher quality than the smaller version.

This isn't a "user upscaled this image" this is an "artist draws in a bigger resolution for easier work" and then shrinking it down for FA since FA only allows smaller uploads.

And honestly, it makes no sense to keep a smaller version if the bigger version is simply better, you may not be able to see the difference, depending on your utilized viewer, but it is still visible enough for many other.

NotMeNotYou said:
[...] it makes no sense to keep a smaller version if the bigger version is simply better, you may not be able to see the difference, depending on your utilized viewer, but it is still visible enough for many other.

Adding to this, there's also an option in the settings that tells e6 to show you an image sample in case it's bigger than 800px (tall or wide)

NotMeNotYou said:
And honestly, it makes no sense to keep a smaller version if the bigger version is simply better, you may not be able to see the difference, depending on your utilized viewer, but it is still visible enough for many other.

I disagree. I've seen images that I liked replaced with much larger versions (not upscaled, legitimately larger), and it has often made the experience worse for me. Usually this happens when the old image was modestly larger than my viewing window (maximized Chrome, no bookmarks bar, small-icons one-row taskbar, 1366x768 monitor), so the resized image is significantly smaller (and often doesn't fill the window), but the larger image is too large to actually make sense of what I'm seeing in my viewing window.

As a concrete example, I remember post #385692 having a version that didn't quite fit on my screen, but I could get all the action on my screen and it looked great. Now I have to choose between having about 40% of my screen wasted on the e621 background, or an image so large that I can't make out what is going on. I was much happier with the smaller image, because the image that I could actually see was much larger with the smaller image.

Now we obviously don't want a bunch of different-sized versions of the same image showing up on search results, but having the smaller versions available from links on the largest post or something would be very nice. Or, ideally, a more flexible resizing system. Browser zoom doesn't really cut it (since it carries over between tabs).

Snowy said:
I disagree. I've seen images that I liked replaced with much larger versions (not upscaled, legitimately larger), and it has often made the experience worse for me. Usually this happens when the old image was modestly larger than my viewing window (maximized Chrome, no bookmarks bar, small-icons one-row taskbar, 1366x768 monitor), so the resized image is significantly smaller (and often doesn't fill the window), but the larger image is too large to actually make sense of what I'm seeing in my viewing window.

As a concrete example, I remember post #385692 having a version that didn't quite fit on my screen, but I could get all the action on my screen and it looked great. Now I have to choose between having about 40% of my screen wasted on the e621 background, or an image so large that I can't make out what is going on. I was much happier with the smaller image, because the image that I could actually see was much larger with the smaller image.

Now we obviously don't want a bunch of different-sized versions of the same image showing up on search results, but having the smaller versions available from links on the largest post or something would be very nice. Or, ideally, a more flexible resizing system. Browser zoom doesn't really cut it (since it carries over between tabs).

You can always hit "download" (it's just a direct link to the actual image) to have it put just the image into a browser window, where it will automatically resize the image to fit your screen size. Usually that's bigger than the resized view on the e621 page, but still smaller than the full size view which may be too big to see all at once. It won't actually download anything unless you right-click-save. But it can be handy for a better viewing size that's a little more in the middle.

Snowy said:
small-icons one-row taskbar, 1366x768 monitor

If you'd like some more screen space, I'd recommend hiding the taskbar. My notebook has the same screen resolution and for me it really helps most of the time.

Snowy said:
I disagree. I've seen images that I liked replaced with much larger versions (not upscaled, legitimately larger), and it has often made the experience worse for me. Usually this happens when the old image was modestly larger than my viewing window (maximized Chrome, no bookmarks bar, small-icons one-row taskbar, 1366x768 monitor), so the resized image is significantly smaller (and often doesn't fill the window), but the larger image is too large to actually make sense of what I'm seeing in my viewing window.

As a concrete example, I remember post #385692 having a version that didn't quite fit on my screen, but I could get all the action on my screen and it looked great. Now I have to choose between having about 40% of my screen wasted on the e621 background, or an image so large that I can't make out what is going on. I was much happier with the smaller image, because the image that I could actually see was much larger with the smaller image.

Now we obviously don't want a bunch of different-sized versions of the same image showing up on search results, but having the smaller versions available from links on the largest post or something would be very nice. Or, ideally, a more flexible resizing system. Browser zoom doesn't really cut it (since it carries over between tabs).

There is a very awesome solution for that: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/imagezoomer/dhnaagndnllbblbgeimdkknegobbpohk?hl=en-GB

Download this addon, right click the image and drag it smaller, works with all images everywhere and you can even drag tiny images bigger to read them more easily.

I have something similar for Firefox and I wouldn't want to part with it anymore, it's just so damn useful.

There is also a resize image button on the settings that could help.

NotMeNotYou said:
I have something similar for Firefox and I wouldn't want to part with it anymore, it's just so damn useful.

Link please :)

blackest_vulture said:
There is also a resize image button on the settings that could help.

Yeah but even with that option on the image tends to be larger than the screen just enough to have to zoom out to see the full image, clicking resize only makes it even bigger.
What I've run into, and I think OP is talking about is the fact that resized images don't automatically adjust for screen size or whatever. The only option is to click download for it to auto adjust to the screen, which doesn't always work for mobile devices...

Got it.

Munkelzahn said:
Link please :)

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/image-resizer/