MattW03@lemmy.ca to Comic Strips@lemmy.worldEnglish · 25 days agoPurposelemmy.caimagemessage-square19fedilinkarrow-up1626arrow-down14file-text
arrow-up1622arrow-down1imagePurposelemmy.caMattW03@lemmy.ca to Comic Strips@lemmy.worldEnglish · 25 days agomessage-square19fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarego $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up30arrow-down4·25 days agoThanks for the link to the creator’s social media account, but that image is jpeged to hell. Here’s a much better copy
minus-squareunexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up13arrow-down7·25 days ago Much better has like 5% less compression which is barely visible in direct comparison
minus-squarego $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11arrow-down1·25 days agoOriginal is 1.47mb. OP’s is 0.47mb. That’s about 3x smaller and it’s a significant difference in clarity. It’s fine if that doesn’t matter to you, but don’t spew shitty info just because you don’t care about the difference.
minus-squaresuperkret@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up5arrow-down5·25 days agoOP’s pic was fine, the quality was good enough for what it is, and it only used 1/3 of the space and bandwidth on the server.
minus-squareBenFranklinsDick@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·edit-225 days ago“Won’t anyone think of the bandwidth of the poor server?” Screw that, give us the high quality stuff. Shit would almost fit onto a floppy disk. 1.47mb is nothing.
minus-squarebrbposting@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·25 days agoQuality snob* here Totally fine *not really, just reverse image search JPG’d images and post originals when I notice something’s ugly
minus-squareAlecSadler@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·25 days agoDisagree. One is kinda blurry and the other is crisp and clear. The difference is night and day.
minus-squareunexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up3·24 days agoThats probably your app previewing the image in the post that way. If you open up the file its almost the same.
minus-squareAlecSadler@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up3·24 days agoDownloaded both on desktop, still a pretty significant difference?
Thanks for the link to the creator’s social media account, but that image is jpeged to hell.
Here’s a much better copy
has like 5% less compression which is barely visible in direct comparison
Original is 1.47mb. OP’s is 0.47mb. That’s about 3x smaller and it’s a significant difference in clarity.
It’s fine if that doesn’t matter to you, but don’t spew shitty info just because you don’t care about the difference.
OP’s pic was fine, the quality was good enough for what it is, and it only used 1/3 of the space and bandwidth on the server.
“Won’t anyone think of the bandwidth of the poor server?”
Screw that, give us the high quality stuff. Shit would almost fit onto a floppy disk. 1.47mb is nothing.
Quality snob* here
Totally fine
*not really, just reverse image search JPG’d images and post originals when I notice something’s ugly
Disagree. One is kinda blurry and the other is crisp and clear. The difference is night and day.
Thats probably your app previewing the image in the post that way. If you open up the file its almost the same.
Downloaded both on desktop, still a pretty significant difference?