I upploaded few comic strips with height around 5000 px. I read the wiki page of absurd_res

General: absurd res

Usually Images that have a resolution much larger than the average monitor.

Posts with this tag should be at least 3200 pixels wide or 2400 pixels tall.

On the bright side, these are very clear, precise images! Oooooh... Look at all the detail!

You can also search for images by resolution, e.g. width:>3200

so, I added absurd_res tag. Then in post #242640 I got a comment:

"Absurd Res" tag? Seriously?
This is FAR from Absurd Res. It's a COMIC STRIP. They're SUPPOSED to be long like this.
Now, if it were zoomed in three or four times, then yes, Absurd Res would be accurate.

and someone else removed absurd_res tags. The more I think about it the more I think that they are wrong. Aren't those tags for people who blacklist LARGE pictures? Should those pictures be tagged absurd_res, should wiki page be changed, or am I simply interpreting wiki page wrong?

Posts with this tag should be at least 3200 pixels wide or 2400 pixels tall.

should be changed to

Posts with this tag should be at least 3200 pixels wide and 2400 pixels tall.

The comic is only 1219 wide. You wouldn't consider each panel to be absurd_res. So I see why they would remove it.

I think this will end up warranting some discussion before we just make a change to the wiki, given how the absurd_res tag is being used right now.

Posts with absurd_res: http://e621.net/post?tags=absurd_res

Posts with absurd_res and less than 3200 pixels wide: http://e621.net/post?tags=absurd_res+width%3A%3C3200

When you throw in the criteria of less than 3200 pixels wide, you STILL end up with over 6 pages worth of posts. That's a lot of images that we're currently saying shouldn't have the absurd_res tag.

Perhaps we could have some kind of rule of thumb using a diagonal measuremeant? Like the way tv sizes are measured

Rainbow_Crash said:
Perhaps we could have some kind of rule of thumb using a diagonal measuremeant? Like the way tv sizes are measured

Like you say, take my screen for example:
My screen is 1366x768

We can do this, using distance between two points for diagonal measure (x1=0, x2=width, y1=0, y2=height):

√1366² + 768²
√1865956 + 589824
√2455780
1567.092

Or measure by area (again, with my screen).

1366px * 768px = 1049088 px²

Then divide it by 1024 (or whatever a megapixel is)
1049088 px² / 1024 = 1024.5

Then, if a megapixel is 1024px², I have a 1.5mpx screen

I hope it's understandable. I'm at school right now and I feel kinda mathy :3

*explodes from math*

It might be worth considering that the wiki for absurd_res was initially written by users, not staff, and the dimensions chosen may no longer be an adaquate description of 'absurd res'

also!

we have a tag of hi res images as well... for 'at least' 1600x1200 ish.

perhaps it is time for numbers to be redefined.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't natural to interpret statement "Usually Images that have a resolution much larger than the average monitor." as, if picture would fit average screen without any rotations/cuts? Pics with height around 5000 px IMO would not fit average screen, no matter how low width it has. I don't think the numbers are only problem, but also first statement in definition.

Remember when 800x600 was high resolution? Those were the days, man.

Agreed. Ntot to mention, there is a wide variety of resolutions availably and to be perfectly honest, "somewhat larger then my monitor' is not how I'd define 'very very high resolution' XD

I actually wonder if we still have need for 'hi res' at all as a tag... when absurd_res covers the larger end of the spectrum very adequately, and we have the ... scarely used low_res..

null0010 said:
Remember when 800x600 was high resolution? Those were the days, man.

Yeah. I look at some of my OLD OLD OLD art and go "my god, this is microscopic..."

hi_res is like "wow this is nice and large, can see a lot of detail" and absurd_res is like "this crashed my mobile browser it was so huge"

But still I stand by either just using common sense to determine if this is larger than the average monitor, or by comparing the diagonal distance

Rainbow_Crash said:
But still I stand by either just using common sense to determine if this is larger than the average monitor, or by comparing the diagonal distance

Call "1 800 ITS HIRES" (01 800 487 44737) and if they answer then the image in question is hi res
~message brought to you by "The HI RESearch Company", hidden fees may apply~

SnowWolf said:
we have the ... scarely used low_res..

I can clean that up, if that's ok. I mean they're just 53 posts, we don't need this tag, or do we?

Edit: post #77158 it's truly low res and don't think this qualifies post #196380

I like absurd res, however, i don't know about any picture that would come close to some of the .tiff maps we used at works.

Old maps, hand drawn at from 1770 to 1940, dimensions of around 80cm x 80cm to 1.5m x 1.5m.
Scanned in a resolution of up to 25k pixels in either direction.
One picture had a filesize of about 150mb. We actually had to upgrade the PC to display that thing.

But you could read and see everything, even the texture of the paper itself and lines with less than 1mm thickness.

Good times seeing every single image program we had to crash.

Sooo, what do I want to say with that?
Your definition of absurd res is slightly different from mine, perhaps.

Xch3l said:
Like you say, take my screen for example:
My screen is 1366x768

We can do this, using distance between two points for diagonal measure (x1=0, x2=width, y1=0, y2=height):
Or measure by area (again, with my screen).
I hope it's understandable. I'm at school right now and I feel kinda mathy :3

you have an interesting idea but...I've done my research and your screen is 1366x768/1,000,000 megapixels. All you've done is found the diagonal length of your screen in pixels.

hg3300 said:
you have an interesting idea but...I've done my research and your screen is 1366x768/1,000,000 megapixels. All you've done is found the diagonal length of your screen in pixels.

Rainbow_Crash said:
Perhaps we could have some kind of rule of thumb using a diagonal measurement? Like the way tv sizes are measured

That's why I used distance between two points in the first example. On the second I tried to use megapixels I didn't know how many pixels were a megapixel... thanks
Then, this results in a length of 1567px and my screen has 1.04Mpx, right?

Xch3l said:
I didn't know how many pixels were a megapixel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix

Discussion

I knew I missed something in my post above ._.

I too, would go with megapixels instead of a fixed width and/or height.

The current wiki dimension would be at (3,200x2,400) 7.68 Megapixels so I'd go with "everything above 7.5 MPixels qualifies for the tag".

Now comics, I'd include them regardless of the dimensions of single panels simply because the tag might see some use on slower machines/phones to filter out browser breaking images.
And a browser won't care about how big a panel in an image is.

NotMeNotYou said:
Now comics, I'd include them regardless of the dimensions of single panels simply because the tag might see some use on slower machines/phones to filter out browser breaking images.
And a browser won't care about how big a panel in an image is.

This must be included in the wiki too