kaaly created by notbad621 and third-party edit
Parent: post #1818696 that has 2 siblings (learn more) show »
Description

Metasect: I have edited the file to remove the transparent sides which were present on the original file, if anyone wondered why i marked the previous version for deletion.

Blacklisted
  • Comments
  • @Metasect nah, edits don't replace originals. Unless you're the original artist fixing your own work.

  • Reply
  • |
  • -5
  • Versperus said:
    @Metasect nah, edits don't replace originals. Unless you're the original artist fixing your own work.

    I removed the side transparent panels, if that makes any senses to you, this flag is counterproductive considering the side transparent panels offers no benefits whatsoever to the image

  • Reply
  • |
  • 2
  • Metasect said:
    I removed the side transparent panels, if that makes any senses to you, this flag is counterproductive considering the side transparent panels offers no benefits whatsoever to the image

    Edits never replace the original, even if it's seen as an improvement. It's in the sites uploading guidelines.
    https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines#bad

    This would fall under "low effort edit" and cropping Unless you are the original artist like aforementioned. If you are please voice that and I'll become silent.

  • Reply
  • |
  • -6
  • Versperus said:
    Edits never replace the original, even if it's seen as an improvement. It's in the sites uploading guidelines.
    https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines#bad

    This would fall under "low effort edit" and cropping Unless you are the original artist like aforementioned. If you are please voice that and I'll become silent.

    Look, i will not argue with you, but i am fairly sure this result was unintended by the artist, you could ask him yourself if you wish so to prove yourself that you may be right about this, but the final word is Notbad621's. Thank you, and we will now let the moderator decides which is best

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • Um, original artist here. ^^;
    What if I tell I agree with this edit? Windows has been a mess into turning these images and this morning at 3am I couldn't find a better solution. ^^;

  • Reply
  • |
  • 7
  • notbad621 said:
    Um, original artist here. ^^;
    What if I tell I agree with this edit? Windows has been a mess into turning these images and this morning at 3am I couldn't find a better solution. ^^;

    Hai Notbad ! o/ Thanks, i thought i'd give a little help for this as it did seems like an unintended result :3
    if this happen again, feel free to let me know and i will fix it for you ^^

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • Versperus said:
    Edits never replace the original, even if it's seen as an improvement. It's in the sites uploading guidelines.
    https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines#bad

    This would fall under "low effort edit" and cropping Unless you are the original artist like aforementioned. If you are please voice that and I'll become silent.

    The file is already edited to make the filesize fit to our filesize limit for GIFs which is 20 MB while artists version is 48 MB - which you would've seen if you were inspecting the situation properly instead of just parrotting guidelines.

    So both versions are already edits.

    notbad621 said:
    Um, original artist here. ^^;
    What if I tell I agree with this edit? Windows has been a mess into turning these images and this morning at 3am I couldn't find a better solution. ^^;

    If at all possible, next time (or this time), could you please provide video version?
    Right now you are fitting thousand clowns into a tiny car, GIF does not handle this high resolutions and this much colors well, but your optimization is lackluster to say the least making it look even worse and filesizes to be even larger. This is EXACTLY the reason why we lowered GIF filesize limit to 20 MB, because if the GIF is over that limit, it's either extremely poorly made and/or should've been video to begin with.

    Like here's denoised WebM conversion of this. Much cleaner, no random pixel crawl on static places and filesize is 2 MB instead of GODDAMN 83 MOTHER FUCKING MEGABYTES
    https://puu.sh/D0Zje/6892f920b2.webm (right click -> loop)

    Actually, if you provide lossless AVI or PNG image sequence, I could even make this GIF look more amazing with lower filesize. I also have bunch of information how to do it properly yourself in my profile bio.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 2
  • Mairo said:

    Like here's denoised WebM conversion of this. Much cleaner, no random pixel crawl on static places and filesize is 2 MB instead of GODDAMN 83 MOTHER FUCKING MEGABYTES
    https://puu.sh/D0Zje/6892f920b2.webm (right click -> loop)

    Actually, if you provide lossless AVI or PNG image sequence, I could even make this GIF look more amazing with lower filesize. I also have bunch of information how to do it properly yourself in my profile bio.

    My apologies... This is like, my third GIF I did so I really have little knowledge about file export... ^^; I have all 72 PNG frames in a drive folder, want me to share it to you?

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • notbad621 said:
    My apologies... This is like, my third GIF I did so I really have little knowledge about file export... ^^; I have all 72 PNG frames in a drive folder, want me to share it to you?

    If you want to.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • I have to wonder, if a guy was on the roof of said building, wanking it, could he get her pregnant if he came when she came down?

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0