Peekaboo
Contributor
5 months ago
ambiguous_gender anthro canine chair drugs fox fur lol_comments looking_at_viewer mammal nightmare_fuel oddly_cute orange_fur plushie real sitting solo source_request stoned stoned_fox taxidermy uncanny_valley unknown_artist what_has_science_done where_is_your_god_now white_fur why

Rating: Safe
Score: 80
User: meanwhile
Date: December 03, 2012

Pretty damn neat. Gonna save some unnecessary effort with this.


Lance_Armstrong said:
What GIMP plugin are you using? Didn't see anything like that in mine.

With gimp I don't need any extra plugins.

I put images as layers, change to differenciation, combine, then select only exactly the same looking pixels with color selection tool. This way I can easily instantly see if there's any difference in pixels of the image - the actual visual difference - without needing to zoom all individual pixels if difference is low. I can then easily check the areas visible with selection tool manually afterwards.

With hashes, I use HashTab and simply view file properties from windows. Really fast and supports pretty much every hash alghorithm and easy to access and remember where it is, instead of taking space from context menu for example.


Lance_Armstrong said:
What GIMP plugin are you using? Didn't see anything like that in mine.

If that's too many steps you can also just use paint.net, add both images as layers, and change the blending mode of the upper layer to difference.


So, uh, anyone feels like hacking together a plugin that adds the _raw at the end of every image viewed on tumblr?


Kaik said:
So, uh, anyone feels like hacking together a plugin that adds the _raw at the end of every image viewed on tumblr?

I think a tampermonkey script was uploaded earlier. There are also extensions for Chrome and FF that can do it through regex.


Well, here I go not reading everything thoroughly again. Found it, thanks.


BTW, if someone wasn't aware of this yet, direct URL to image actually contains MD5. I just wasn't certain that what versions MD5 this is because most of the time it didn't match any version of the image.
media.tumblr.com/<RAW MD5>/tumblr_<string>_<quality>.png

So if the _1280 is identical to raw, then that part in URL should match the filename on e6.

But take this also with grain of salt, as I have only tested this on handful of posts and didn't seem to be case with couple GIF animations at all.


plsignore said:
TL;DR if you're saving images from tumblr, change "1280" to "raw" in the url first!

If you're like me, you care about having the highest quality images (and if you're not like me, shame on you).

Tumblr is stupid and frustrating in that it resizes everything that's uploaded to it. If the filename ends in _540.png or _1280.png then you've saved a smaller, resized version instead of the original image, and that's bad. Most image downloaders are going to grab the 1280 version, because that was thought to be the biggest one available. But it turns out you can obtain the raw, unresized image by replacing the 1280 with "raw" in the filename.

Unfortunately, the 1280 version has been the 'standard' for a long time. I have a hunch most images uploaded here which come from tumblr are shrunken.

At least if your gonna do it, do it with new images instead pre-uploaded ones because now i cant tell what pics are new or witch arnt. And im sure no one wants to download doubles


KarmaTheDragon said:
At least if your gonna do it, do it with new images instead pre-uploaded ones because now i cant tell what pics are new or witch arnt. And im sure no one wants to download doubles

The new ones are clearly better.


KarmaTheDragon said:
At least if your gonna do it, do it with new images instead pre-uploaded ones because now i cant tell what pics are new or witch arnt. And im sure no one wants to download doubles

it would be easy to tell if people added comments like this https://e926.net/comment/show/3322404 to their posts


Just a precautionary for all you participating in this Tumblr.Raw gold mine, some posts have been deleted from Marblesoda's recently uploaded. Take of it as you will.


Siral_Exan said:
Just a precautionary for all you participating in this Tumblr.Raw gold mine, some posts have been deleted from Marblesoda's recently uploaded. Take of it as you will.

Knew something like this would happen.


Siral_Exan said:
Just a precautionary for all you participating in this Tumblr.Raw gold mine, some posts have been deleted from Marblesoda's recently uploaded. Take of it as you will.

What is bit problematic here, is that now all those deleted posts earlier versions are better_version_at_source, so everyone can still access those files themselves, even if they are not on this site.

However artist is aware of this now and this is definitely something that all artists should be aware of more instead of keeping quiet, especially if their artwork monetization is based on resolution or if artist does leave scaling to sites like furaffinity.


Mario69 said:
What is bit problematic here, is that now all those deleted posts earlier versions are better_version_at_source, so everyone can still access those files themselves, even if they are not on this site.

However artist is aware of this now and this is definitely something that all artists should be aware of more instead of keeping quiet, especially if their artwork monetization is based on resolution or if artist does leave scaling to sites like furaffinity.

Since users are going to continue to upload these high resolution versions on accident, should the artist get the conditional_dnp implication? That question is for NMNY.

This can be used for tracking more of these takedowns (or just read all of the takedowns): source:tumblr*_raw status:deleted delreason:takedown -marblesoda


Lance_Armstrong said:
Since users are going to continue to upload these high resolution versions on accident, should the artist get the conditional_dnp implication? That question is for NMNY.

This can be used for tracking more of these takedowns (or just read all of the takedowns): source:tumblr*_raw status:deleted delreason:takedown -marblesoda

I'm hoping Marblesoda instead manually resorts to resizing images to 1280, but a conditional dnp won't hurt too badly.


o.O well, we did foresee a spike in threads about replaced posts with this happening but it's like 1 or more every day now. what a mess this project is.

edit: help, please? the "raw" method doesn't seem to work on post #657701. it just lead to this error page.

and wow, those old posts i uploaded are huge. i had no idea just how big they really were till this discovery was made.

shoot! looks like i have a few posts where i didn't include a direct pic link.

post #847893, post #847897, post #847903, post #847904, post #847949, post #847951, post #848075, post #848076, post #848078, post #848079, post #848080, and post #848081

how do i go about replacing those when i didn't leave a direct image link back when i uploaded them AND the tumblr in question is gone?

Granberia
Contributor
5 months ago
2015 animal_humanoid apron blush clothing dragon dragon_humanoid female granberia green_scales hair hi_res humanoid looking_at_viewer monster_girl monster_girl_(genre) monster_girl_quest naked_apron red_hair scales simple_background solo standing tau_1111 video_games yellow_eyes

Rating: Safe
Score: 9
User: Granberia
Date: September 02, 2017

treos said:
edit: help, please? the "raw" method doesn't seem to work on post #657701. it just lead to this error page.

It doesn't work for posts older than something around december 2012.


treos said:
how do i go about replacing those when i didn't leave a direct image link back when i uploaded them AND the tumblr in question is gone?

Search for the image with Reverse Google Search.
If you're lucky, someone has reposted it, and you can get the direct image link that way.

edit:
please make the posts you listed clickable

Dogenzaka
Privileged
5 months ago

Munkelzahn said:
Search for the image with Reverse Google Search.
If you're lucky, someone has reposted it, and you can get the direct image link that way.

edit:
please make the posts you listed clickable

Also, if the artist had some text in their post such as a description or whatever, you can google search that and find reblogs that are still intact. This has helped me a few times.


Munkelzahn said:
Search for the image with Reverse Google Search.
If you're lucky, someone has reposted it, and you can get the direct image link that way.

edit:
please make the posts you listed clickable

ok and post edited.

edit: :/ i see nothing but rule34.xxx and e621.net coming up in the results. and the rule34.xxx posts are the same size as those i uploaded here.

hmmm... yeah, looks like rule34.xxx has a bot account for uploading stuff.

"join date: 2013-04-15

posts: 1,919,249
deleted posts: 93,375"

yep, definitely a bot cause it has every single wycicus post i uploaded here, added to rule34. only the artist tag is japanese and untranslated over there. and the upload times are all within the same day as when i added them here.

user:treos wycicus

bot's uploads of my posts

Strongbird
Contributor
5 months ago

Question:

Why is the file size of Tumblr 'raw' PNG files sometimes lower than that of their 1280 versions? For instance, post #1169845 vs post #1253844.

I decided to upload the latter anyways since the image clarity zoomed in to the same resolution was superior, without any visible artifacting, but I'd like to hear some thoughts on what could be causing this. Does Tumblr somehow increase file size when compressing images to the 1280 limit, and if so, why?


Strongbird said:
Question:

Why is the file size of Tumblr 'raw' PNG files sometimes lower than that of their 1280 versions? For instance, post #1169845 vs post #1253844.

Differences in metadata. Tumblr downscales can sometimes have more data than the originals.

Strongbird
Contributor
5 months ago

Ratte said:
Differences in metadata. Tumblr downscales can sometimes have more data than the originals.

Alright, thank you for the swift response. That alleviates some concerns.


Strongbird said:
Alright, thank you for the swift response. That alleviates some concerns.

It's fine. This is why we go for visual appearance instead of filesize, as a lot of metadata (such as exif data) doesn't mean anything for how the image actually appears.


Ratte said:
Differences in metadata.

Not entirely, especially not in this case.

PNG filetype relies on optimizing redundancy aka lossless compression. If you look at the posts on pixel level, you can see the original is aliased/binary drawing, it's insanely easy for the alghorith to go that "this whole exact area is only this one particular color".

Now, when you downscale content like this using some method of filtering, suddenly the pixels aren't perfect pixels anymore, but they are smoothed around with next areas pixels, so there's much more data need that needs to be saved. Instead of telling that some area is one particular color, now the areas are smaller and the edges of the area needs to be saved differendly and there's much less patterns to look for.

This is also why you can sometimes have insanely HD resolution gif file which only takes a 1 MB and sometimes gif for ants can be 40 MB instead - GIF is lossless filetype similar to PNG, so easier the patterns, easier they are to optimize meaning they take less space.

Now if you take that particular image and save it as JPG, filesize will actually get MUCH larger and quality decreases. This is because JPG is lossy filetype designed specifically for photograps, so it tries to look up for stuff it can compress and solid colored clear lines and solid colored areas are the worst as those shouldn't happen in photos.

But the main point still stands, never look for the filesize, but the actual content that is being used and always prefer the lossless compression where possible. Sometimes it's difference in metadata, sometimes in compression level, sometimes somewhere else. And this applies to all cases, not just images from tumblr.


Mario69 said:
file size...stuff

so, which should be flagged in such a case (for future reference when i find posts like those i DMailed you about last night)? the post with the larger file size?


So, just to be certain, the policy is to go off of visual differences, not filesize? I'm thinking about things like post #1253565 where the filesize of the tumblr version is larger than the previously uploaded (inkbunny full-res PNG) version, but there is no visual difference, even when compared using something like resemble.js.

Is the policy that if they are both the same resolution and both are (natively) PNG images, the old upload will stay, even if the filesizes are different?

Strongbird
Contributor
5 months ago

ChineseImmigrants said:
So, just to be certain, the policy is to go off of visual differences, not filesize? I'm thinking about things like post #1253565 where the filesize of the tumblr version is larger than the previously uploaded (inkbunny full-res PNG) version, but there is no visual difference, even when compared using something like resemble.js.

Is the policy that if they are both the same resolution and both are (natively) PNG images, the old upload will stay, even if the filesizes are different?

Inkbunny only strips non-visual metadata on uploads to the best of my knowledge, regardless of format. For the sake of archival, it's debatable whether metadata has any use, but for loading and viewing images, it's preferable to a post without additional non-visual file size bloat.

In the past janitors/admins have deleted visually identical reuploads from non-Inkbunny sites (SoFurry, Weasyl, and Tumblr all don't do the metadata stripping), so I'd imagine that policy is still standard today.


treos said:
so, which should be flagged in such a case (for future reference when i find posts like those i DMailed you about last night)? the post with the larger file size?

Filesize, does, not, matter.

E: It's quality that matters and filesize can vary according to how the data was handled to store that quality. If unsure, content matching provided source should be preferred, which means hashes matching.

Strongbird said:
Inkbunny only strips non-visual metadata on uploads to the best of my knowledge, regardless of format. For the sake of archival, it's debatable whether metadata has any use, but for loading and viewing images, it's preferable to a post without additional non-visual file size bloat.

In the past janitors/admins have deleted visually identical reuploads from non-Inkbunny sites (SoFurry, Weasyl, and Tumblr all don't do the metadata stripping), so I'd imagine that policy is still standard today.

Exactly. Inkbunny is actually nice enought to actually have proper wiki explaining their policy on this, which is included in source here: https://e926.net/wiki/show/howto:sites_and_sources#inkbunny

At least with PNG files I think the process to be non-destructive as the filetype holds less metadata than JPG and it mostly seems to do optimization, which would actually be preferred to be done by artist before uploading. With JPG files, especially photographs we are also talking about stripping personal information like GPS locations, which can be argued to be about security of identity of artist.

Inkbunny does also save every single versions MD5 hash, so if you would like to double check easily that if the file from tumblr is the same as inkbunny upload earlier, simply generate MD5 from tumblr post and compare it to "Initial" hash on inkbunny page. "Full size" hash is for version inkbunny serves and what the e6 handles as identical file, meaning that first version uploaded from two is preferred.

ChineseImmigrants said:
So, just to be certain, the policy is to go off of visual differences, not filesize? I'm thinking about things like post #1253565 where the filesize of the tumblr version is larger than the previously uploaded (inkbunny full-res PNG) version, but there is no visual difference, even when compared using something like resemble.js.

Is the policy that if they are both the same resolution and both are (natively) PNG images, the old upload will stay, even if the filesizes are different?

Yeah, older upload stays in this case. Handled.