Lower file limit

Hmm, let me test something.
This image was uploaded WITH detailed exif data. It is not mine, perhaps not anyone's, and was created specifically to test the exif system.
If the exif data is still available after posting, that is concerning.
DSCN0010.jpg
 
Mosteel said:
Hmm, let me test something.
This image was uploaded WITH detailed exif data. It is not mine, perhaps not anyone's, and was created specifically to test the exif system.
If the exif data is still available after posting, that is concerning.
View attachment 385983
Click to expand...
Downloading it right now does show metadata, but:
FloofyNewfie said:
From what I understand it gets stripped from photos. However, it's not something that happens immediately. Basically a scan is performed on the servers every 15-20 minutes to strip the metadata from what I've been told.
Click to expand...
 
Uh Oh!
Now, the other linked thread says a program runs through the site to wipe exif data every 20-30 minutes.
But with all due respect, that seems like a pretty insecure way of doing this. Things are uploaded very frequently, half an hour is a long time, and custom archivers are faster.
Plus, no word on if it applies to PMs.
Uh oh.PNG
 
Mosteel said:
Hmm, let me test something.
This image was uploaded WITH detailed exif data. It is not mine, perhaps not anyone's, and was created specifically to test the exif system.
If the exif data is still available after posting, that is concerning.
Click to expand...
It is now wiped, roughly 30 minutes later.
 
Bloit said:
Why is your arbitrary limit better than the existing arbitrary limit?
What does limiting it to 150MB fix?

It'll just make it harder for those that have good intentions to upload some quality material.

Ripped / stolen content is compressed to shit aleadt, any way.
Click to expand...
The point of the suggestion wasn't to address ripped/reposted content, it's about people uploading phone-recorded footage with ridiculously massive and needlessly inefficient file sizes. And calling it an "arbitrary limit" doesn't magically negate the point. You could call a 1GB cutoff arbitrary and most people would still say that would be way too high, or something like 50-100MB would be way too low. You have to assign a number somewhere.

Besides, it's already been demonstrated in other replies why the suggestion isn't viable (@pes 's suggestion 3 posts before you about file types makes more sense than mine anyways), so I'm not sure why you're just repeating what others have said.
 
Vermilion said:
Oh yeah... reduce the picture quality like it's 1999...
Click to expand...
There are plenty of videos out there that look great without having to squeeze just under the limit. Bigger file size =/= better quality, you quickly get to a point where the difference is not even discernible to the eye without a close frame-by-frame comparison.
 
Mosteel said:
Uh Oh!
Now, the other linked thread says a program runs through the site to wipe exif data every 20-30 minutes.
But with all due respect, that seems like a pretty insecure way of doing this. Things are uploaded very frequently, half an hour is a long time, and custom archivers are faster.
Plus, no word on if it applies to PMs.
View attachment 385984
Click to expand...
I feel like the best compromise between safety and ease of use is to just reject files that have GPS data. I don't know about other models but on my phone I can remove location data after the fact with one button (ofc I keep it off anyways). Requiring users to scrub exif data in its entirety to avoid file rejection just so people don't know what phone and shutter speed/ISO they used seems kind of pointless to me, while making uploading really confusing in the process.
 
gsdmixg said:
I feel like the best compromise between safety and ease of use is to just reject files that have GPS data. I don't know about other models but on my phone I can remove location data after the fact with one button (ofc I keep it off anyways). Requiring users to scrub exif data in its entirety to avoid file rejection just so people don't know what phone and shutter speed/ISO they used seems kind of pointless to me, while making uploading really confusing in the process.
Click to expand...
What? Why? If you're going through the trouble of detecting and rejecting exif data... it's trivial to wipe it on upload. Pretty much every other service on the internet, even the smallest, manage it.

I think this issue is becoming a bit overcomplicated.
 
gsdmixg said:
The point of the suggestion wasn't to address ripped/reposted content, it's about people uploading phone-recorded footage with ridiculously massive and needlessly inefficient file sizes. And calling it an "arbitrary limit" doesn't magically negate the point. You could call a 1GB cutoff arbitrary and most people would still say that would be way too high, or something like 50-100MB would be way too low. You have to assign a number somewhere.
Click to expand...
Yea, no size limit is gonna fix that problem.
I'm calling it "arbitrary", because it is. Changing the file size limit doens't change anything, anywhere, other than annoying users that want to upload content.

gsdmixg said:
There are plenty of videos out there that look great without having to squeeze just under the limit. Bigger file size =/= better quality, you quickly get to a point where the difference is not even discernible to the eye without a close frame-by-frame comparison.
Click to expand...
Bigger file size does generally mean better quality...
I mean, there's only so much detail you can include when compressing a video. The more compression, the more artifacts you're gonna see.

The problem you're trying to fix isn't one of file size. It's content moderation.
 
Bloit said:
Yea, no size limit is gonna fix that problem.
I'm calling it "arbitrary", because it is. Changing the file size limit doens't change anything, anywhere, other than annoying users that want to upload content.


Bigger file size does generally mean better quality...
I mean, there's only so much detail you can include when compressing a video. The more compression, the more artifacts you're gonna see.

The problem you're trying to fix isn't one of file size. It's content moderation.
Click to expand...

You can save around 25-35% of the file size, without changing resolution, just flipping it from Apple's MOV to MP4
 
JazzyPaws said:
You can save around 25-35% of the file size, without changing resolution, just flipping it from Apple's MOV to MP4
Click to expand...
MP4 is not lossless.
It's compression. It's not bad compression, but it's compression nonetheless.

So, as I stated:
Bloit said:
Bigger file size does generally mean better quality...
Click to expand...
That still holds.

Now, I'm not saying we should just be uploading uncompressed files of the sake of "quality", certainly not!
My point is that there's no automated way to fix OP's problem (bad quality content, where quality means video contents, not format)
 
Bloit said:
MP4 is not lossless.
It's compression. It's not bad compression, but it's compression nonetheless.

So, as I stated:

That still holds.

Now, I'm not saying we should just be uploading uncompressed files of the sake of "quality", certainly not!
My point is that there's no automated way to fix OP's problem (bad quality content, where quality means video contents, not format)
Click to expand...

If the option exists, format could be enforced. MP4 is not lossless, of course, but, for the purposes laid out, it's more than fine enough, in my opinion. At least then, file size limit wouldn't need to harsh, and it'll force people uploading smaller videos, to use a smaller filesize container.
 
JazzyPaws said:
If the option exists, format could be enforced. MP4 is not lossless, of course, but, for the purposes laid out, it's more than fine enough, in my opinion. At least then, file size limit wouldn't need to harsh, and it'll force people uploading smaller videos, to use a smaller filesize container.
Click to expand...

That doesn't do anything to fix the problem, though...
ZV servers' upload (client download) speed is pretty bad, and enforcing a specific format means even fewer people will actually upload anything. Not everyone knows how to re-encode video.

Neither does any of this fix the problem of video recordings off of screens...
 
Bloit said:
That doesn't do anything to fix the problem, though...
ZV servers' upload (client download) speed is pretty bad, and enforcing a specific format means even fewer people will actually upload anything. Not everyone knows how to re-encode video.

Neither does any of this fix the problem of video recordings off of screens...
Click to expand...
A guide could easily be posted on how to use Handbrake. It's default is 1080p Mp4, so most people can just drag, drop, hit go, and then upload the new one. You're right that the server load is a bit slow tho, and that can't be helped.

While it may not help the WHOLE situation, maybe a bunch of little steps, will at least help enough

video recording off screens is just so "WTF" in 2023, idk why people even bother.
 
JazzyPaws said:
A guide could easily be posted on how to use Handbrake. It's default is 1080p Mp4, so most people can just drag, drop, hit go, and then upload the new one. You're right that the server load is a bit slow tho, and that can't be helped.

While it may not help the WHOLE situation, maybe a bunch of little steps, will at least help enough

video recording off screens is just so "WTF" in 2023, idk why people even bother.
Click to expand...
But 1080p can be a huge quality loss. And since this site is a direct source... the lost resolution will likely never be seen again.
 
Mosteel said:
But 1080p can be a huge quality loss. And since this site is a direct source... the lost resolution will likely never be seen again.
Click to expand...

Can be, but that also depends. I just tested it to see how much MOV > MP4 would shrink and hurt the quality.. File size from 111mb to 75mb, no distinguishable loss in quality.
 
Mosteel said:
What? Why? If you're going through the trouble of detecting and rejecting exif data... it's trivial to wipe it on upload. Pretty much every other service on the internet, even the smallest, manage it.

I think this issue is becoming a bit overcomplicated.
Click to expand...
That was meant to be a response towards the suggestion to reject files with exif data, however I think I read that in a thread elsewhere and got a little mixed up.
 
JazzyPaws said:
Here, look for yourself, the videos are playing at full size, I just narrowed the window to show side by side. The timestamp should be within .5seconds of each other

View attachment 386060
Click to expand...
This shows exactly what I meant when I said (and I'm going to @Bloit since this is mostly a response to their post):
gsdmixg said:
. . .Bigger file size =/= better quality, you quickly get to a point where the difference is not even discernible to the eye without a close frame-by-frame comparison.
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between these shots if you look close enough? I'm sure there is. Does it make any difference at all in actuality for someone watching porn? No, it really does not. Sure, the quality is technically better but it's totally unnecessary to squeeze out such a minuscule difference at the sacrifice of a lot of server/disk space and DL speed. And that was over 30% reduction in file size.
 
Mosteel said:
Eh, fair's fair. I can't tell the difference.

Perhaps you got a point!
Click to expand...

Honestly, for the purpose porn serves, as a quick way to get your bones going, even if someone does a stronger compression, and does introduce some artifacting, at 1080p, a little can be forgiven, I'd think, as you'd still get a quality enough porn to do what you need.

Honestly after going thru so much of it, trying to help dig out bad stuff, I'd take a mildly choppy 1080, to some of that 480 & 320 garbage that shakes so hard it gives you a seizure :ROFLMAO:
 
JazzyPaws said:
Honestly, for the purpose porn serves, as a quick way to get your bones going, even if someone does a stronger compression, and does introduce some artifacting, at 1080p, a little can be forgiven, I'd think, as you'd still get a quality enough porn to do what you need.

Honestly after going thru so much of it, trying to help dig out bad stuff, I'd take a mildly choppy 1080, to some of that 480 & 320 garbage that shakes so hard it gives you a seizure :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Ney... as higher the resolution, as better. Low res, and with low res I mean anything below WQHD, gives me nothing anymore. I want to see every hair, sweat pore, pearl of bodyfluid, shimmer of sweat, blood vessel... we're in 2023, with every smartphone being able to shoot at 4k. Blurry, artifacted crap should be obsolet for now and for all time.

What really frustrates me is the quality downward spiral in porn pics, with the image quality getting lowered with every repost because some AH thinks to spare some more bandwith.... (and splapping some ugly third party watermark + soundtrack on it and cutting it down to retard alignment (vertical)).
Burn in hell, YT shorts/Tiktok.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top