|
Ever since the file naming policy was created by Shade (Contribs • Message • Email) on 20:14, March 25, 2012, in this edit, there has been conflicting verbiage. The main section on file naming says "Most desired file type usage: .png for small images, .jpg for large ones." Item description images are usually the largest images on the item pages, so they should be .jpg according to this policy and the "shown" images should be .png -- However, in the sub-section on Item pages, the policy is conflicted by the verbiage:
- "Preferred pattern for description images: Page name (which should match the exact item name).png"
- "Preferred pattern for main worn/action shots of weapons/armor/helmet/goggles equipped: Page name (which should match the exact item name) shown.jpg"
Which is the exact opposite of what the parent section says. So, to fix the issue:
- I vote to synchronize them to be consistent.
- I vote to have the sub-section match its parent.
The end result would be changing the wording in the sub-section to:
- "Preferred pattern for description images: Page name (which should match the exact item name).jpg"
- "Preferred pattern for main worn/action shots of weapons/armor/helmet/goggles equipped: Page name (which should match the exact item name) shown.png"
I actually prefer shown images to jpg and descriptions to be png. Descriptions need to be sharp to be readable (png, lossless). Worn images don't need crispiness (lossy jpg). If we embrace quality loss, png is still a better format than jpg for descriptions. For example, I've uploaded a bunch of versions of Media:Divine_Artillery.png. The oldest version is already using a "decrease color depth" function to 256 colors, which is enough such images. For the second version, I've used some online png compression tool, tinypng.com. For the third version, I've used IrfanView image viewer/editor, first the Flood Fill tool to clean up the black background (2 clicks), then Decrease Color Depth down to 16 colors. Imho the result is quite satisfactory.
TL;DR, I disagree with the change. Preserve the vague status quo. --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 15:03, July 28, 2015 (EDT)
- Shown images should be flawless since not everyone has high resolution or DX10/11. Descriptions just need to be readable ant their crispness is not important. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 16:39, July 28, 2015 (EDT)
- I don't think it should really matter which format is used for images. The important part is text readability on the description images and the file names: <PAGENAME>.ext and <PAGENAME> shown.ext. (Shown images don't always match the pagename since multiple items can share the same look.) The item description images need to be sharp enough so that the text doesn't fuzz. — Zav (T·E·C) 16:45, July 28, 2015 (EDT)
- Is the site storage or bandwidth a concern with these 1 or 2 images per page? I've always preferred PNG for almost all images where possible due to the JPG compression artifacts ("fuzz"). This is especially visible in the worn images with a high antialiasing or where there are sharp contrast lines. "Tauro" (Contributions • Message) 01:20, August 1, 2015 (EDT)
- I mostly uses .jpg for the simple reason that the default screenshot taken by the game stores it on a .jpg file. For the cases I believe a sharper image should be taken (like enhancement icons), I do the big workaround of using the screenshot button and editing the image manually. There is also the issue that "small" and "large" are relative concepts. Are those being talked about image pixel size, or file size? And if so, where is the breaking point? Also, that specific point about the items would require retaking shots from almost all items, since most of them uses the old standard. I'm with Cru121 on that. Keep the vague status quo. Nibelung (Contributions • Message) 22:47, August 2, 2015 (EDT)
- I vote to make it simple for the user: Either .png for both, or .jpg for both. I know that I, for one, will never remember which is which, so let's just... pick one and stick with it. As for which, I have no real preference; I usually convert stuff to .png simply because that seems like a smaller (file size-wise) and I can't say I've ever noticed a difference quality-wise. LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 22:10, August 3, 2015 (EDT)
- Normally use .jpg because that is the format the client takes screenshots with and I'm usually spamming the screenshot button trying to catch things in logs (like DR or spells or whatnot) and client screenshots are habit. I don't see .png as being any clearer quality wise. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 22:23, August 3, 2015 (EDT)
- I prefer PNG for description and whatever for shown. PNG is lossless and in some cases, it is very noticeable when a lossy format is used. It starts to hurt my eyes if I try to read it. This is a screenshot, the top being JPG from the screenshot in the game folder, the bottom being from the system clipboard pasted into Paint and then saved (my usual method of doing description pictures if I notice the wiki's missing something). There is noticeable fuzzing in the JPG above the sheltering line even at 1:1, and becomes very obvious once you start zooming in. --Thalone 00:15, August 4, 2015 (EDT)
- png is definitely an improvement over jpg in almost all situations. The only advantage jpg have is because it is the standard format from in-game screenshots. Getting a jpg screenshot and saving it as png don't improve anything. If you, personally, can save in png, it is a preferred format. But since the wiki have community-based content, makes sense for most people to just provide pics from their screenshots. Nibelung (Contributions • Message) 01:08, August 5, 2015 (EDT)
- PNG is almost lossless, depending on the compression and capture mechanism. I put this together to show the lossy-ness of the in game JPG, Steam client PNG, verses lossless PNG using FRAPS. Note how the shadows are washed, the background is artifacted and dithered, and how some of the facial details are also "fuzzed". I would motion that either PNG or JPG are acceptable, if they are of a good quality, but replaced if a better/higher quality becomes available. "Tauro" (Contributions • Message) 02:48, August 6, 2015 (EDT)
- I just noticed looking at my sample picture. You really can't even tell my character is wearing ear piercings except in the lossless PNG. "Tauro" (Contributions • Message) 02:53, August 6, 2015 (EDT)
- Looking at your sample, the first one (jpg from client) is much clearer than the second one (png from steam) and the last one (png from fraps) is way too big file size wise despite being the clearest. We can't forget that the large file threshold is 150kB and the maximum file size is 2MB. I'm considering getting the 150kB large file threshold bumped up a little since we completely ignore it at that size; I'm thinking 750kB would be much more appropriate and reasonable. Unfortunately, because of the fact that we have files that are available but aren't in the database, our Special:ListFiles (- http://enwp.org/Special:ListFiles is what it should look like -) doesn't work right now, so I can't see what we have for comparison very well. I don't know how or if we can fix that right now, and I'm not having any luck getting Xevo (Contribs • Message • Email) to reply to my emails about updating the software or making configuration changes. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 10:46, August 18, 2015 (EDT)
|
