There are nearly a million posts tagged absurd res.

It's not absurd anymore, in fact, it's now become a very common and realistic res.

When I think of a resolution that's absurd, I think of a resolution over 10K, which is the current meaning of superabsurd_res

I suggest the following changes:

• Move all absurd_res posts to a new tag very_high_res, defining very_high_res as the current definition of absurd_res.
• After that, move all superabsurd_res posts to absurd_res, defining absurd_res as the current definition of superabsurd_res.

The above proposal is just a tag rename, but another option is to change the thresholds, like making absurd_res be 6K or 8K instead of 10K, as long as it's higher than the current 3.2K wide and 2.4K tall.

Also, this might be a good opportunity to standardize the way we define these tags.

• Right now absurd_res is defined as either dimension being over the threshold (3.2K wide OR 2.4K tall), but superabsurd_res requires both. Why?
• Right now superabsurd_res has different thresholds for horizontal and vertical, but superabsurd_res has the same threshold for both dimensions. Why?

For context, the parameters for absurd_res were set in 2012.
Apparently, back then, the most common screen resolution was 1366x768.

You would have to get into contact with Pup, this user adds all these tags automatically to posts via a script I reckon.

wolfmanfur said:
You would have to get into contact with Pup, this user adds all these tags automatically to posts via a script I reckon.

No, his bot adds aspect ratio tags.
The resolution tags get added by the site itself. For some reason, the values are actually hard-coded.
https://github.com/e621ng/e621ng/blob/024f195858907ea5a3a8870024657c3d21666dfc/app/models/post.rb#L644-L649

cinder said:
No, his bot adds aspect ratio tags.
The resolution tags get added by the site itself. For some reason, the values are actually hard-coded.
https://github.com/e621ng/e621ng/blob/024f195858907ea5a3a8870024657c3d21666dfc/app/models/post.rb#L644-L649

Nice to know, I didn't really pay it enough attention before to notice.

Maybe a megapixel tag would make more sense...

You can get a 1080p monitor for $100 and a 4K monitor for $300 so yes, I agree that resolution standards should be increased.

Do like VESA or the like:
Standard, HD, ultra HD, 4K HD, etc.? XD
So I guess the next is really absurd resolution, then very absurd resolution, then OMG_absurd_resolution, and finally WTF_absurd resolution once we allow images over 100MP? :P

alphamule said:
Do like VESA or the like:
Standard, HD, ultra HD, 4K HD, etc.? XD
So I guess the next is really absurd resolution, then very absurd resolution, then OMG_absurd_resolution, and finally WTF_absurd resolution once we allow images over 100MP? :P

I prefer to go with the numbers since I like to think it makes me better at filtering out capitalist marketing propaganda. I can't say I know a lot about photography, save that Get Out was a good movie.

peacethroughpower said:
I prefer to go with the numbers since I like to think it makes me better at filtering out capitalist marketing propaganda. I can't say I know a lot about photography, save that Get Out was a good movie.

It's a joke to use the marketing terms unless you're replacing an LCD panel because you're usually shopping for size or contrast. UHD and 4K (actually more like 3K) is even more of a joke, anyways, because of me not being able to see it. ;) The majority of TVs now are potato quality and that's ignoring the smart TV aspect. We're talking overheating power supplies for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution#WXGA_1366_x_768_and_similar_(WXGA) These aren't like the BS names the TV manufacturers put on their boxes. These are specific resolutions with names not really intended for the average consumer, but for someone either working with a laptop a LOT, or someone trying to source a replacement panel for them.

BTW: 1920 × 1200 (WUXGA) is pretty much perfect for laptop-sized screens. Even 17", that's reaching limits of being practically useful. And lower than that is going to be annoying as hell if you use your laptop for remote desktop/VNC.