Larger size limit for image host

With today's high res screens, I was wondering if maybe we can have a larger file size limit on tpu.org, so we can host those larger png's from gaming screenshots and such?

 

I was told to get better at compressing images when I asked for it with my new camera.

 

Resize them. There is no need for pictures to be so humungus.

 

I concur

 

Would be nice but maybe it's done to cut down on costs\space over time. I just use my ISP's space if i want to post screenshots that should have higher quality.

That depends on what it is like a re-sized in game pic is not as good as the original. In fact i like the larger pics for nearly any thing.

 

There is if you don't want quality loss.

People will just host them elsewhere, and that will be even slower than hosting them on TPU's servers.

 

I'm going to vote 'yes' to this, TPU is my vastly preferred picture host, but frequently I have to resort to hosting elsewhere because of the size limitations here.

I think a 4 or 5mb limit would be ideal

 

Well, I was thinking more in terms of screenshot comparisons in games. Resizing of any kind results in losses.

 

I really don't see any time when a screenshot needs to be over 2MB. And I actively ensure that the images I post are under 1MB actually, and haven't really run into an occasion where I needed more.

 

i really dont know anything about photoshop or photo compression so please help. if i have a 1920x1080 screen shot of a game what is the best practice for maintaining picture quality while reducing the size to 2MB ?

 

You can't. If it's above 2MB in png, going any lower requires lossy compression of some sort. Png is the flac of pictures.

 

irfanview save as jpg set quality factor, or size limit... it will do it automatically for you

www.irfanview.com

 

And be lossy in the process.

That's the point I'm trying to drive home, for lossless comparos, we can't jpeg or resize.

 

what's the typical size of a 1920x1080 screenie using something like fraps?

 

Don't know 100%, but in the blackops thread, riskss69 couldn't use tpu to host his 1080p png screens. That's what promted me to make this thread. I just thought it would be better and faster than external hosting.

 

well i remember asking about increasing the img size like 2 years ago and was told to be better at compression.

 

Well then, somebody needs to show me a better way than png to compress a larger image completely losslessly. I honestly don't really know how. There has to be something out there, but then, doesn't the image host have to be updated to accept that format?

 

Not for a direct comparison it isn't good enough. Lossy compression introduces too many variables to be considered accurate. It's no different than flac vs mp3 on the audio front.

 

We have this thread way too much. Take it from a guy who makes sigs on a weekly basis for you guys, that when I say we don't need more space, that we don't.

Yes, my signatures would look better 5kb larger.
Yes, your signatures would look better 5kb larger.

However, really? Do we really need larger signature sizes to increase our E-Peen size? I personally think the size limit (both storage and dimensions) are very fair. You can do alot with these constraints guys. Look at my signature. Does it look bad? Yeah, the colors could be more vibrant and things are a tad blurry, but ONLY I know that.

It won't really matter, so stop asking.

Plus, W1z has more important things on his mind, like not leaking the GTX590 W1zzard Edition review.

 

beats me. i figure image hosting is expensive for bandwidth so i understand limiting it to 2 MB.

 

somebody didnt read the entire first post.

 

Except I'm not talking in the context of sigs. Yeah, that's good enough.

For review and comparison purposes on games, lossy IS NOT good enough, and not a true representation of what you get in game.

Context matters here.

I can understand that aspect, and that's a valid concern that only w1z can determine the value of. No other argument against has been valid thus far, however.