So we have two tags: hi-res and absurd-res. In the age of 4K monitors, I say we change absurd-res to hi-res and remove hi-res.

Probably won't happen but it just is a little irritating :p

Yeah, I really agree, the expectations of what is and isn't high res have changed a lot in the many, many years since these tags became standard.

It would especially be nice to use actual megapixel counts rather than... whatever mess this is. (source)

tags << "superabsurd_res" if image_width >= 10_000 && image_height >= 10_000
tags << "absurd_res" if image_width >= 3200 || image_height >= 2400
tags << "hi_res" if image_width >= 1600 || image_height >= 1200
tags << "low_res" if image_width <= 500 && image_height <= 500
tags << "thumbnail" if image_width <= 250 && image_height <= 250

1599x1199 (1.93MP) isn't regarded as hi_res because it doesn't meet the above requirements, but something like 9:16 phone wallpaper downsized by Fur Affinity (pre 2022) would be 720x1280 (0.92MP) and get tagged as hi_res.

If we're leaving the realm of realistic example that actually exist on the website, even 1x1200 (0.0012MP) would be tagged as hi_res.

I guess it's because it's taking the definition of "doesn't fit on a typical monitor" literally rather than the resolution itself, but I don't think this is really a very productive way of calculating it. 99% of users see the downsampled version of the image by default, which will fit on their screen just fine.

Heres the thing, I dont think most people are on that monitor size, they are large, and expensive, from a quick google search, 1920*1080 is still the most popular resolution by far, and it only gets smaller.

Well, now seeing Faucets view, it really changes my thoughts... hmm, needs more thought

If I can't see the individual pixels of a digital artist's brush then it ain't absurd in my books

According to the advertising page, the vast majority of e621's traffic is actually mobile users, which have much higher screen resolutions than desktop users on average and are in portrait resolution. I really can't imagine a 720x1280 image looking very big at all on an iPhone X's 1125x2436 screen. That's already a 6-year-old phone, wow, I'm sure new ones are even higher.

If we're talking physical objects, even at a low DPI like 150, you'd only be able to print 720x1280 onto a 4.8" by 8.5" canvas. (compare to this canvas size chart)

cutefox123 said:
Heres the thing, I dont think most people are on that monitor size, they are large, and expensive, from a quick google search, 1920*1080 is still the most popular resolution by far, and it only gets smaller.

Even as somebody who still uses a 1080p monitor in 2024, I don't really regard something that's just barely larger than my screen resolution to be "high res", but that might just be me. If I can't zoom in and pan around, is it really high res?

I've also known a few people with 2560x1440 monitors long before 4K was a thing, but I'm not sure what the market share of those is to be honest.