vf.nightcore said:
I think these two point are contradicting each other:

• Example of image that was replaced by the original artist (it was replaced with this image).
• Example of image that was replaced with one of higher quality (it was replaced with this image).

If the original image is always preferred, when should one ever replace an image with one of higher quality?

Why would the original image always be preferred? If there is a higher quality/better edit/replaced by artist edit or anything at all, I would delete the old one and replaced it.

Edit: I see, Flandre posted something in the comment section, that I do not agree with.

Wiresetc said:
Why would the original image always be preferred? If there is a higher quality/better edit/replaced by artist edit or anything at all, I would delete the old one and replaced it.

Flandre93 said:
The original version is always preferred[/b].

Edit: I know that one image of Isla was a special case where the background was extended which doesn't (technically) improve the resolution.

I just don't quite follow whether higher quality rules over the original or the other way around.

Why would the original image always be preferred?

That depends on what you mean by original. With the exception of scans, the original (ie. best revision by the artist) is normally the one we want so long as it meets our minimum requirements.

But there are exceptions, such as when a flaw in the image is fixed by someone other than the original artist.

vf.nightcore said:
Edit: I know that one image of Isla was a special case where the background was extended which doesn't (technically) improve the resolution.

Just extending a white BG on the left and top of an image that already meets our requirements would normally be considered an unneeded/unwanted edit.

Extending the left side of an image to fit 16:9 just makes it appear smaller on 16:10 or 4:3. And it doesn't even change how it looks on a 16:9.

On the other hand, if you want to remove letterboxing from an image before uploading it, that would actually be beneficial.

Zolxys said:
Just extending a white BG on the left and top of an image that already meets our requirements would normally be considered an unneeded/unwanted edit.

Yes ofcause, the thing about this case was that the extended version was uploaded before the original. In such situations the resolution of the original is technically lower than the extended version. Which one is to be deleted, or do you keep both?

The case I'm referring to has been solved btw... Someone made the final decision on what image to keep, but I'd still like to know your professional opinion for personal records and future encounters O.-

vf.nightcore said:
In such situations the resolution of the original is technically lower than the extended version.

"Resolution" has more than one meaning. The idea that higher resolution is better is not really about image dimensions.

For example, you can take a 1600x1200 image and upscale it to 3200x2400. Likewise, you can take a 1600x1200 image and extend the BG to make it 3200x2400 without upscaling it. Would you prefer the higher res image in either of those cases?

When you say higher res is better, you should be referring to the level of detail in the content.

And as an example, let's say you have an image that's 1600x1080. That will display on either a 1600x1200 or 1920x1080 monitor without scaling. Now if we extend the BG to make that 1920x1080, it will still display without scaling on a 1920x1080, but it will be downscaled to display on a 1600x1200. Now that would be reasonable if you were adding content, but all you're doing is adding empty space and making the content appear smaller as a result...

Zolxys said:
When you say higher res is better, you should be referring to the level of detail in the content.

And as an example, let's say you have an image that's 1600x1080. That will display on either a 1600x1200 or 1920x1080 monitor without scaling. Now if we extend the BG to make that 1920x1080, it will still display without scaling on a 1920x1080, but it will be downscaled to display on a 1600x1200. Now that would be reasonable if you were adding content, but all you're doing is adding empty space and making the content appear smaller as a result...

I agree that upscaling an image decreases the quality even though the dimensions expand but when you downscale an image and extend the background, the resolution is automatically improved. Ex. The original image is now smaller and much more detailed (this is also how they transform old 4:3 movies into HD). Though I also agree that normally there would be no reason for adding empty space, the resolution is improved nevertheless.

In some cases this may change the dimensions to a better fit for a widescreen.

But I think we're on the same page, there's no need for images with extended backgrounds. I doubt these special cases show up often.

vf.nightcore said:
... but when you downscale an image and extend the background, the resolution is automatically improved. Ex. The original image is now smaller and much more detailed.

If an image appears more detailed when you downscale it, it's because it's already lacking detail (for it's size) in one form or another. It could be that it was a scan or was upscaled, or it could just be the art style. But in most cases, reducing the number of pixels available to store (or display) content relusts in a loss if some information (detail).

Kiho said:
Does anyone else consider this image an unnatural rotation? Look at the cup and tray she holding, the drape of her hair, the position of the tables...?

Wiresetc said:
It is, but I make exceptions for game_cg
More examples are (both NSFW) post #203603 and post #203446
Maybe we should add that to the guidelines.

This issue centers post #204457

I believe this is the right thread for this to be discussed. It seems like a lose end when it comes to posting, so in my opinion, it should very much be addressed on wither the upload guidelines or the Image Evaluation Page.

First of all, it's not actually a rotated image. That is exactly how it appears in the game.

All CG for any particular VN will be the same size (unless the image pans), which will naturally be a standard monitor resolution. Tilting like this is done to make better use of the space available to show the desired content. For example, if this particular image was not tilted, then they would have either had to show less of the character or make the character smaller. Considering the short amount of time you would normally see it during gameplay anyway, I think it's a decent approach.

Granted, the view angle in this particular image is more extreme than most tilted CGs and this would look much better rotated 90° clockwise. Most VN players should be used to this thus making it more acceptable. There is however a limit and this is pushing that limit quite a bit.

Since the Image Evaluation Page is long finished, how about changing the name of this thread (if it's even possible) to "Image Evaluation Thread" or "Image Evaluation"? Then this thread could serve as a discussion on (as the name says) evaluating images and whether specific art styles and so on, should be allowed to upload.

First order of business, I have now stumbled across an issue that has been highlighted before, yet this case is slightly different:

post #200633 and post #200846 are exactly the same image but the latter is a refined version of the first; the transparent white frame has been removed resulting in an overall prettier image. This leaves 2 almost identical images but they have now been added to a parent/chil relationship. This has been done before and I believe that it's a mis-use of the parent/child system.

When adding images to a parent/child relationship, we're talking about a difference in the background or the pose of the character(s) pictured in the image. I think one of these images should be deleted but since I have been overruled before in my "flagging for deletion" for perhaps not so legitimate reasons, I'll let you decide what should be done.

Thank you.

vf.nightcore said:
This has been done before and I believe that it's a mis-use of the parent/child system.

I have no idea where you got that idea. This is what the PCS is for. Why would you think to exclude images from a parent/child relationship for being "too similar"?

Even if we were to delete a duplicate, we would parent/child them first so that the votes would be transferred. And that also allows anyone following a link to the deleted version to click on the parent link to the current one.

It's up to the mods whether there's enough difference between two images to keep them both. In this case, post #200846 does indeed look better at low resolutions because of the improvements that have been made. But even at 1080, post #200633 definitely looks better. And try comparing them at 1440... If I were to choose one to keep, it would be post #200633, but I see no problem with keeping them both.

I always thought identical posts with a smaller resolution got a child status by default. That's how I've been doing it.

Besides, having been recently wading through posts from five plus years ago, I can say that there are many, many posts that are completely similar but have no parent/child status with the other post(s) they belong with.

It's a mess back there, you guys. The quality of some of our older wallpapers is just freaking atrocious.

Parent/Child is never assigned by default. You're probably thinking of the possible_duplicate tag.

Zolxys said:
Parent/Child is never assigned by default. You're probably thinking of the possible_duplicate tag.

Eh. I'll keep it in mind.

I thought that was only for two images that were EXACTLY the same in every way.

otaku_emmy said:
I thought that was only for two images that were EXACTLY the same in every way.

I don't believe the upload page will allow you to upload an exact copy.

possible_duplicate is applied to images that have extensive similarities such as images with color balance tweaks, different resolutions, or minor edits.

Edit: Re OE's response - Considering an artist can update/modify an image at a given source link, depending on the source link to determine duplicates would be ....dubious?

Kiho said:
I don't believe the upload page will allow you to upload an exact copy.

I think it depends on what source you give, doesn't it?

But anyway, I'll.....remember.

Kiho said:
I don't believe the upload page will allow you to upload an exact copy.

otaku_emmy said:
I think it depends on what source you give, doesn't it?

You can't upload an image with the same md5 checksum as another image. This normally just means you can't upload a file that's exactly the same (byte for byte). You can still upload an image with the exact same pixel data as another image. For example, if only metadata was added/removed/changed or the image was losslessly re-compressed.

The source has nothing to do with it.

Okay. I'm dumb. Moving on. ^_^

So I'm kinda curious here. What exactly are our upload requirements, to be precise? I was fairly sure that we had a pretty strict policy on the guidelines. Though I do enjoy images such as post #206189, I'm having a hard time understanding why it would ever get approved. The AR is 1.24 which is on the borderline. On both of my monitors (even on the one that's only 1440p, the other one is full HD 1920x1080p) I see plenty of flaws, like aliasing on her left palm, her hair and the hat. It's actually on almost the same level as one of the example images from the image evaluation page under the aliasing section: Example.

Since at all times, I would try to follow the image evaluation page, I have absolutely no chance of approving or deleting images. Where goes the line of acceptance?

The AR being 1.25 isn't really a problem. That's even a standard monitor AR (5:4)

But the quality is lacking; I certainly wouldn't approve it. The aliasing isn't as bad as in that example, but the background has a number of flaws.

I see, thank you.

Regarding AR, as long as it has some pixels above the bar that shows the resolution of the image (on a search page/post index), it's quite fine to keep it.
And that particular image has an AR of exactly 1.25:1. Funny.

Tensa said:
Regarding AR, as long as it has some pixels above the bar that shows the resolution of the image (on a search page/post index), it's quite fine to keep it.

I mentioned the AR just to add some reason. I don't really mind as long as it's higher than 1.1 AR.

It was the aliasing that really bothered me, because I can easily spot it on my monitors, sometimes it's so heavy that it really doesn't look good.

Tensa said:
And that particular image has an AR of exactly 1.25:1. Funny.

Because it was cropped to that AR. (Note: user:mattiasc02 cropped)

At least he's doing something.

Mattiasc was uploading images with an AR <1.25:1 (check pages 5 and 6 of his uploads). I messaged him about it and since then he uploaded 1.25:1 as a minimum. It is good to know this user is learning.

Unlike some who just won't tag, even after 6 plus 1 negative records.

What even is this? It might just be me, but do anyone really think that this image looks good? In my opinion, this does not live up ti our quality standards, what's more the quality standards we've actually included in our guidelines, yet we seem to approve of such art anyways.

Edit: Also, how about changing the name of this thread to "Image Evaluation Thread" or something along those lines? It will continue to serve as a thread for discussing images and their quality, now it'll just be easier to find.

You're saying someone had approved that post?

Zolxys said:
You're saying someone had approved that post?

Someone had to right?