Snarkpit's Screenshot Compression

I understand wanting to keep image sizes and dimensions small, but the screenshots of Museum that I uploaded look like crap.

The originals were only 480x360 and about 50kb. The versions on Snarkpit are half the filesize, but there are obvious compression artifacts:




I agree that compression is needed, but it shouldn't make image quality suffer in a noticeable way. The whole point is to show off our maps and make them look good, isn't it?

And no, I don't mind remote-linking from my own webspace, but the interface for viewing pics that way isn't as convenient for viewers. If I do, they'll all be 1600x1200 pics to piss off Orpheus ;D

Do you think it really matters that much? I get the same impression from both screenshots, and I think people are smart enough to see it's a lossy compression rather than a lousy map.

I would post 800x600 shots in the maps forum thread anyway...

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

To be frank I can't see any massive marked difference and I think
you're being more than melodramatic in your criticism. Writing another
image compression code is out of the question due to file access, and I
doub't you'd be able to improve on the ability of PHP to compress
images and retain 100% quality. It's not possible.

Also, this should be in Site Suggestions/Bugs, technically.

Meh, I dunno. When I spend so much time on a map, I don't want the screenshots looking poor, though.

I'll just link from my own webspace from now on I guess :/

Seems sensible :razz: To be fair I thought you did that already? I think
most people do nowadays, allows them to show off the true beauty and
post processing etc etc..

I noticed that a while ago. Solution: Upload 100% quality JPGs and let Snarkpit do the compression. The result is fine.

---

Why snark works.

I noticed that a while ago. Solution: Upload 100% quality JPGs and let Snarkpit do the compression. The result is fine.

bwahahaha great idea :evilgrin:

You chose a pretty crappy image to make your point because the ceiling and the walls are wrapped in materials that are dotted and look mushy anyway, compression or no compression :razz: .
I understand what you mean though and all I have to say is that it would be really cool if we could have thumbnails for remote-linked pics. If you can have these in the forums then I don't see why you can't have them in your profile as well.

Jpeg just is prety bad at compressing stuff with a lot of rapidly changing detail. Your walls have these tiny grooves in them = pain for the jpeg codec. Of course it looks a bit squishy then.

What's my concern, however, is why 50 kb (which is by far an acceptable size) is resized to 20 kb by the snarkpit server. Shouldn't be.

---

:: Forceflow.be :: Nuclear Dawn developer

btw, that's in the site suggestions/bugs section for a long time.

---

Why snark works.

reaper47 said:
btw, that's in the site suggestions/bugs section for a long time.

Yes, but Master Lep, began the thread anew. So its missing now.

I suggest either hosting it someplace else, or dealing. There are just to freaking many stupid people posting oversized screens. Its sad that the whole must suffer for the few, but you cannot do much to stupid people. :rolleyes:

Even though Lep wrote the code, it was one of my best ideas... If only I could remember who thought of it first. :heee:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Irony: if I give it an uncompressed screenshot, it may end up with a bigger filesize than if I had done the compression myself. I'll have to see when up update Museum's next better, that would make me giggle.

Wish you could upload thumbnails to the 'pit, then host the images yourself.

Jinx said:
Wish you could upload thumbnails to the 'pit, then host the images yourself.

I don't understand. The code is in place to use thumbs. What diff does it make where the host is as long as there is hotlinking allowed?

([thumb=thumb.jpg ]big.jpg[/thumb ]) Remove spaces.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.