this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
73 points (100.0% liked)
196
18027 readers
211 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From less than 700kb in size to more than 8 megs for only double the resolution ? That's why wikipedia feel sluggish sometimes. Why even changing it to a worse file format ? What's the points ?
The resolution is actually quadrupled by doubling the value of both axes. In this case going from 1500x1424 (2.1MP) to 3504x3327 (11.7MP) multiplies the total number of pixels by 5.4
With the same level of jpeg compression you'd expect it to jump from 700KB to roughly 4MB. Since both images are the same file format, the rest of the file size difference is likely attributable to less jpeg compression being used in the larger image.