The current tags are defined as this:

hi_res: ≥ 1600W or ≥ 1200H
absurd_res: ≥ 3200W or ≥ 2400H
low_res: ≤ 500W and ≤ 500H

I really think these standards are too low.

• A 4K image is not absurd, but it has a width of 3840 pixels, so it would be classified as absurd res by e621's standards.
• A 1200x1200 image would be classified as hi_res currently, but that resolution does not seem high to me.
• If I see an image only a bit smaller than what e621 classifies as hi_res, like 800x800, I immediately think to myself "wow, that resolution is quite low", but e621 considers low_res to be under 500x500.

Just like nobody today considers "HD" (1280x720) a high resolution, we should update our standards for what is considered high resolution and low resolution. One option would be to just double the numbers:

hi_res: ≥ 3200W or ≥ 2400H
absurd_res: ≥ 6400W or ≥ 4800H
low_res: ≤ 1000W and ≤ 1000H

Or, we can change them to be somewhere in-between. Here is an idea that would classify 1440p to 4K images as hi_res, and reserve absurd_res for things above 4K that are actually absurd.

hi_res: ≥ 2500W or ≥ 2000H
absurd_res: ≥ 5000W or ≥ 4000H
low_res: ≤ 1000W and ≤ 1000H

This last suggestion would make absurd_res be about half the resolution of superabsurd_res.

I find it a bit funny like e621 is an old man that is still amazed by 1080p and literally pass out seeing 4k.

Still by definition 720p is still HD, just not "full hd".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p

I wouldn't be against this. 1080x1920 is pretty much the baseline, especially since FA removed their limits a few months(?) back. Anything below should be considered low res, but I'd say anything beyond 8k would be absurd res.

4k is becoming more and more of a thing while 8k is still out in the boonies.

Heck I recently upgraded from a 27-inch FHD monitor in 2015 to a 32-inch 2k in 2020. I remember back in my young days of early 2010 at the city library thinking how 720p was more than plenty for youtube.

how do you get what each dude's saying

strikerman said:
how do you get what each dude's saying

personally, years of having to parse fluffspeak in comics and text posts made by users who had paid no mind to readability on Fluffy-Booru has prepared me for this exact moment.

Yea, some alterations could be in order. Even though Danbooru — which uses the exact same limits — decided against it.

It's all automatically tagged, so just need to figure out the new thresholds. Not too much, though. After all, not everyone's using cable, and 4K is rather annoying to view over a slow mobile network.

See also topic #43140 from.. 2 weeks ago.

I guess width: and height: searches are always a possibility as a fallback if someone is actually relying on these (eg. searching low_res to find things that should be tagged pixel_art), so I don't see any reason that this should not happen.

Bump, the standards for hi_res and absurd_res are still too low. I am planning to upload an image soon that is 15000px in width but under 10000px in height, so it does not quality as superabsurd. It's absurd that this actually absurd 15K res image will be put in the same category as a regular 4K image when it has 14 times the pixels.

Another option would be to replace these tags with less subjectively named ones, at least in part: low_res, hd, full_hd, 4k, 8k, or something similar.

It also seems counterintuitive to define these based on the longer side. 800 x 12800 isn't absurd, it's just a normal webtoons page. I would switch that "or" to an "and" personally.

Hmm, could have sworn there was a discussion on this topic where an idea was mentioned, to just have less arbitrary names for the larger resolutions. 10MP is a lot clearer than something like ultramega_absurd_resolution or supercalifragilisticexpialidocious_resolution. In a similar vein to 5K_lines for 5000-5999 lines. Not 5K because movie industry is run by assholes and 4K isn't actually 4K but "between 3000 and 4000 lines".