Search
(Supports wildcard *)Copyright
- ? original 42921
Artist
- ? trubbol 1
General
- ? animal transformation 267
- ? brown hair 29313
- ? computer 521
- ? furry 17855
- ? malesub 13912
- ? tech control 23024
- ? transformation 9603
- ? unaware 5715
Meta
- ? comic 28021
- ? text 82301
Statistics
- Id: 63533
-
Posted: 2018-05-01 08:58:52
by bugmenot - Size: 756x1174
- Source: trubbol.deviantart.com/art/Hypnosis-290212974
- Rating: Safe
- Score: 16 (vote up)
>> #249183
Score: 0 (vote Up)
New size: 756x1174
If someone went through the effort to upscale it, then why only increase by less than 100 pixels in each direction?
>> #249184
Score: 0 (vote Up)
Old size: 717x1113
New size: 756x1174
If someone went through the effort to upscale it, then why only increase by less than 100 pixels in each direction?
This isn't upscaled, the one it's replacing was downscaled.
DeviantArt was just trying to save bandwidth by downscaling it a bit and switching from a lossless format to a lossy one, but doing so introduced a considerable amount of jpeg artifacting and that sort of thing sticks out like a sore thumb to me, so I uploaded the original version.
Compare: <<orig00.deviantart.net/438...is_by_trubbol-d4ss9ri.png|Original>>, <<pre00.deviantart.net/ac6a...is_by_trubbol-d4ss9ri.png|Downscaled>>.
>> #249187
Score: 0 (vote Up)
This isn't upscaled, the one it's replacing was downscaled.
DeviantArt was just trying to save bandwidth by downscaling it a bit and switching from a lossless format to a lossy one, but doing so introduced a considerable amount of jpeg artifacting and that sort of thing sticks out like a sore thumb to me, so I uploaded the original version.
Compare: <<orig00.deviantart.net/438...is_by_trubbol-d4ss9ri.png|Original>>, <<pre00.deviantart.net/ac6a...is_by_trubbol-d4ss9ri.png|Downscaled>>.
That seems like it'd take up more bandwidth overall, to me. Since they'd need to host both versions.
>> #249189
Score: 0 (vote Up)
That seems like it'd take up more bandwidth overall, to me. Since they'd need to host both versions.
Hypothetically, let's say that the original image is 2MB and the resized version is 1MB and that people only view the original image 25% of the time. That means they'll only use 75% as much bandwidth as they would if they only served the original version and they can therefore serve 1.33x as many concurrent users, even if they do end up using 1.5x as much storage space.
As much as I hate the fact that they (and everyone else under the sun) resize images, I suppose it makes sense for them to do so.
Edit: Fixed my math. Someone that views the original version would end up using 3MB of total bandwidth.
>> #249203
Score: 0 (vote Up)
>> #249266
Score: 0 (vote Up)
>> #249312
Score: 0 (vote Up)
>> #249316
Score: 0 (vote Up)
This reminds me of a Dilbert strip I once read in which Dilbert, annoyed by a guy in sales, claims that he's reprogrammed the guy's monitor to emit a type of radiation that will turn the sales guy into a weasel. Dilbert is naturally lying through his teeth, but the sales guy is so gullible that he actually starts mutating.
Here's the Dilbert strip if anyone wants to read it:
dilbert.com/strip/1995-07-03
dilbert.com/strip/1995-07-04
dilbert.com/strip/1995-07-05
dilbert.com/strip/1995-07-06
>> #249332
Score: 0 (vote Up)
Is it a representation from the subject point of view ? Or does it affect reality ? We will never know anything else than, it's great.
I don't know how many times I've done actual hypnosis session like this. Turning people into their fursonas for a spell. Lots of fun for me and them.