tag:danbooru.me,2005:/forum_topics/8811 Twitpic no longer provides fullsized images. 2013-06-15T17:50:30-04:00 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/89375 2013-06-15T17:50:30-04:00 2013-06-15T17:50:30-04:00 @EB: > Ars said: > > The same also applies to... <blockquote> <p>Ars said:</p> <p>The same also applies to Twitter's own image hosting. Unfortunately, there are some artists that upload only to twitpic/twitter, so this can't always be avoided, but if an artist tends to upload his/her work later on onto pixiv, a blog or whatever else, it's probably best to just wait until he/she does so.</p> </blockquote><p>When I know the artist uploads the same images elsewhere, I do try to prioritize those sources as I've seen the difference. Twitter's own image hosting seems to be even worse than Twitpic as I always find JPEG artifacts very noticeable on images posted there. Well, obviously excepting images in the PNG format (always like it when artists decide to use that for their Twitter images).</p> EB /users/11672 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/89369 2013-06-15T16:08:40-04:00 2013-06-15T16:08:40-04:00 @Ars: > RaisingK said: > > Oops, I put my "else"... <blockquote> <p>RaisingK said:</p> <p>Oops, I put my "else" statement at the wrong level, nevermind.</p> <p>I can automate making comments indicating the original dimensions/filesize, but is there any point?</p> </blockquote><p>Unless there's some way to seduce twitpic's api into giving the originals through a magic aphrodisiac script or some such, no. There is no point. :&lt;</p> Ars /users/32251 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/89367 2013-06-15T16:03:24-04:00 2013-06-15T16:05:24-04:00 @RaisingK: > Ars said: > > post #1439119 and post... <blockquote> <p>Ars said:</p> <p><a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1439119">post #1439119</a> and <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1414402">post #1414402</a> have been deleted from twitpic, how were you able to pull info on them? </p> </blockquote><p>Oops, I put my "else" statement at the wrong level, nevermind.</p><p>I can automate making comments indicating the original dimensions/filesize, but is there any point?</p> RaisingK /users/13506 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/89366 2013-06-15T16:00:25-04:00 2013-06-15T16:00:25-04:00 @Ars: post #1439119 and post #1414402 have been... <p><a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1439119">post #1439119</a> and <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1414402">post #1414402</a> have been deleted from twitpic, how were you able to pull info on them? </p><p>Also, oddly enough, <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1441037">post #1441037</a>'s "fullsize"(<a rel="external nofollow noreferrer" class="dtext-link dtext-external-link" href="http://twitpic.com/cwzqa0/full">http://twitpic.com/cwzqa0/full</a>) is now 141846 bytes... unless <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-user-id-link" href="/users/320756">user #320756</a> uploaded the <a rel="external nofollow noreferrer" class="dtext-link dtext-external-link dtext-named-external-link" href="http://naomi703703703.blog112.fc2.com/blog-entry-183.html">correct version from the artist's blog</a> and for whatever reason used the twitpic version as the source? lolidunno</p> Ars /users/32251 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/89364 2013-06-15T15:39:40-04:00 2013-06-15T15:55:32-04:00 @RaisingK: > Ars said: > > Sorry for the bump but there's... <blockquote> <p>Ars said:</p> <p>Sorry for the bump but there's more info on this that needs to be said: even if the image uploaded is equal to or below 600px in width, its filesize will still be reduced/changed.</p> </blockquote><p>There are a few that match in width, height, and filesize, e.g.:</p><ul> <li><a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1441037">post #1441037</a></li> <li><a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1439119">post #1439119</a></li> <li> <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1414402">post #1414402</a><br> </li> </ul> RaisingK /users/13506 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/89358 2013-06-15T15:01:04-04:00 2013-06-15T15:01:04-04:00 @Ars: Sorry for the bump but there's more info on... <p>Sorry for the bump but there's more info on this that needs to be said: even if the image uploaded is equal to or below 600px in width, its filesize will still be reduced/changed. For example: <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1436000">post #1436000</a>, its original filesize is 427.13 KB according to <a rel="external nofollow noreferrer" class="dtext-link dtext-external-link" href="http://api.twitpic.com/2/media/show.xml?id=cv27f9">http://api.twitpic.com/2/media/show.xml?id=cv27f9</a> but has been reduced to 236.06 KB through twitpic. </p><p>The artist later uploaded the image onto his homepage, here <a rel="external nofollow noreferrer" class="dtext-link dtext-external-link" href="http://jigizagi.sakura.ne.jp/cg/diary/20130605025143.png">http://jigizagi.sakura.ne.jp/cg/diary/20130605025143.png</a>, which of course has the original filesize of 427.13 KB. </p><p>The same also applies to Twitter's own image hosting. Unfortunately, there are some artists that upload only to twitpic/twitter, so this can't always be avoided, but if an artist tends to upload his/her work later on onto pixiv, a blog or whatever else, it's probably best to just wait until he/she does so.</p><p>Or not, I dunno.</p> Ars /users/32251 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/82368 2012-12-17T07:14:05-05:00 2012-12-17T07:14:05-05:00 @DakuTree: Looks like this has been happening for nearly a... <p>Looks like this has been happening for nearly a week now, with the last non-resized image being <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1316050">post #1316050</a>. </p><p>Might be worth pointing out that the API is still showing their original resolutions. <br><a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1321205">post #1321205</a> (600x738) is apparently 821x1011 according to the <a rel="external nofollow noreferrer" class="dtext-link dtext-external-link dtext-named-external-link" href="http://api.twitpic.com/2/media/show.xml?id=bmtrdk">API</a>.</p> DakuTree /users/366578 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/82366 2012-12-17T06:55:31-05:00 2012-12-17T07:14:05-05:00 @Ars: A recent change to Twitpic has made it so that... <p>A recent change to Twitpic has made it so that images larger than 600px in width are automatically downsized.</p><p>Examples:<br><a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/992551">post #992551</a> -&gt; <a rel="external nofollow noreferrer" class="dtext-link dtext-external-link" href="http://twitpic.com/6ie9zx/full">http://twitpic.com/6ie9zx/full</a> From 1074x1624 to 600x907</p><p><a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/1281257">post #1281257</a> -&gt; <a rel="external nofollow noreferrer" class="dtext-link dtext-external-link" href="http://twitpic.com/awmgxp/full">http://twitpic.com/awmgxp/full</a> From 3744x5048 to 600x808</p><p>And then there's this confirmation from Twitpic's support: <a rel="external nofollow noreferrer" class="dtext-link dtext-external-link" href="https://twitter.com/Cabel/status/279419147849453568/photo/1/large">https://twitter.com/Cabel/status/279419147849453568/photo/1/large</a></p><p>I'm worried this change might cause downsized duplicates to be uploaded, so I'm posting here to try to get the word out in hopes to limit this from happening as much as possible.</p> Ars /users/32251