| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Screenshot minimum size
The recommended screenshot size is still given as 320x200, but given the number of releases that include the border either to show border effects or just to give the central area the same context as other releases, the few remaining new productions that use 320x200 now convey quite a misleading impression.
Could we bump the recommended (& minimum upload?) size to 384x272, and perhaps set a minimum size for the IMG element on the summary view so that old uploads are padded browser-side? |
|
... 23 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
wil
Registered: Jan 2019
Posts: 62 |
It's even worse for the C128 VDC releases. Exporting from VICE gives you 856x288 quadratic pixels, which means the image is 200% stretched in X.
Not that I would expect many releases for that mode though... |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Fair point about NTSC - and yes, it'd make sense to me to drop the minimum to 384x247 on that count.
I'm just (not) looking forward to the day I get around to releasing something that relies on chroma noise, and can't upload an accurate screenshot ;) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
like all those fine Mermaid pics? :) |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2242 |
What Mace suggest (no fancy Neon-Spectrum-Pallete, sometimes I ask myself whether some people either have never had a real C64 or what kinda settings they used back in the 80s or whether they are just color-blind).
Borders should be there to illustrate if border effects like OSCAR/ESCOS are there or not. CHECK. Of course "debug borders" only makes sense if something is visible only there as in Smasher's Emulamer-release. CHECK.
But I really don't get the pixel-count-wanking when it comes to ratio. I'd bet most coders have "full borders" set, yeah, which results in different ratio screenshot than "normal borders" (BTW blaming VICE for not contributing to fancy rules makes me LOL).
If we see borders in the shot (no matter if they are full or normal), then why is it so hard to endure for some Screenshot Deputies that they delete screenshots without any comment? Moderators at least spit out their standard spam when they delete screenshots. Deleting shots anonymously because of a "should"(!) rule without any notice comes very close to Database Vandalism, something people used to earn bans for in the past.
So maniac screenshot deputies and sheriffs out there: Go fix(!) ALL the screenshots in the Database to your "should" rule, but this ain't just deleting but implies re-doing the ones that give you trouble - frame for frame in case of Ani-GIFs. This should take you some nights, hope you enjoy yourselves! |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2242 |
@Anonymous Screenshot Pixel Counter Amok:
What WAS wrong with this shot
Starburst 96
As noone tells us, we'll never know.
Really just pathetic.
So 80% of all screenshots are gonna be lost when this bot cleansing is over \o/ Hooray, much better than enduring screenshots with "wrong" ratio /o\/o\
 |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3193 |
https://csdb.dk/gfx/releases/1/712-2019-06-11-02-22-00.gif
here's your fucking "screenshot" that has been deleted, are you going to whine about it for some more, or just accept there IS a reason these retarded pics are being removed?
Being a moderator in here is just like being a janitor at a kindergarden, nobody care to follow some simple rules, nobody even tries to help making it a better place and everyone whines and attacks you if you do your job.
One of the reasons I dropped my position. Fucking retards. |
| |
Zyron
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2381 |
What Ian said. Stop fucking whining and complaining all the time. All of you. Do you truly believe it's productive? Don't you seriously have anything more important to do? |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2242 |
OK I apologize for criticizing this particular case. Sorry.
However, the comments referring to the screenshot might as well be deleted too, then, as they don't make any sense anymore.
PS: Yeah, there are endlessly more important things, but the more I wonder about the sudden zeal of some people |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2979 |
Quoting iAN CooGhttps://csdb.dk/gfx/releases/1/712-2019-06-11-02-22-00.gif
here's your fucking "screenshot" that has been deleted, are you going to whine about it for some more, or just accept there IS a reason these retarded pics are being removed?
Being a moderator in here is just like being a janitor at a kindergarden, nobody care to follow some simple rules, nobody even tries to help making it a better place and everyone whines and attacks you if you do your job.
One of the reasons I dropped my position. Fucking retards.
Pictures like the stamp-sized GIF from Starburst do have an un-retarded reason. The release is from 2000, and back in the days, CSDb had a size limit on screenshot files in the order of 64 KB. This restriction was in effect until at least late 2004.
If anyone wanted to showcase more than just one screen of their production, the GIFs' dimensions would become smaller the more frames they have.
Now, deleting these old pictures due to them not complying to current rules is a bit like punishing somebody retroactively with an ex post facto law.
But why are those screenshots deleted without providing better versions? Does storage capacity still come at a premium? Is it to encourage the kindergarten user base to submit better versions more quickly? |
| |
Mr. SID
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 424 |
Starburst 96
You're welcome. (don't forget to clear your browser cache) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |
