Posted under General
So there's this user that has been downloading the jpg of the picture, usually source from twitter because a better version hasn't been uploaded yet, and converting it to png and uploading it. I am not sure what the verdict for this yet but since one got flagged recently for said reason, I just want to known what other people think about it. Also, since the user is a builder, all those pictures have been passing.
Smells like waifu2x shenanigans, and we already had a thread about that(topic #11824).
I think the general consensus is still: No, it shouldn't be and done and any posts that have been run through that should be the child should the artist later upload it to pixiv or what have you.
I'm against it as it doesn't improve the image quality (upscaling artifacts from Twitter JPG recompressing doesn't make anything better), and it's better to post what was uploaded with the original source.
I'd flag those posts, and maybe reupload from the original Twitter post, with the understanding that they'll be made child posts of the later upload to Nico or Pixiv, should those appear - just as Tapnek suggested way back then.
Also noted that a source:none search from that user's uploads should reveal all of the edited images.
Is post #2365369 one of these upscales? It looks like it, as the source picture is a lower resolution (post #2342765) and has shading in Akagi's hair near the back of her head which was lost in the upscaled picture.
I'm flagging that one, BTW.
Jarlath said:
Is post #2365369 one of these upscales? It looks like it, as the source picture is a lower resolution (post #2342765) and has shading in Akagi's hair near the back of her head which was lost in the upscaled picture.
I'm flagging that one, BTW.
That's a straight up scan, don't be jumping to conclusions. It clearly has a visible texture from the physical medium.
The ones I'm referring to are posts like post #2367413. As one can see from this picture, the original picture was already uploaded, the user then converts it and uploads while setting it as the parent. If looked through the user's account, many of the pictures were done in the same fashion with the original already uploaded and the user modifying it and reuploading it.
zaregoto said:
The ones I'm referring to are posts like post #2367413. As one can see from this picture, the original picture was already uploaded, the user then converts it and uploads while setting it as the parent. If looked through the user's account, many of the pictures were done in the same fashion with the original already uploaded and the user modifying it and reuploading it.
I just checked post #2367150 - even though it has the same source as its parent, it didn't match the MD5 of what's currently posted in Pixiv, while the parent post does match the MD5.
What's with that, anyways? There wasn't even a resolution change. I don't see the point in reuploading in this situation unless you want to boost upload counts.
Edit: that may be my error as the child was uploaded before the parent, allowing time for a change.
Updated
Jarlath said:
I just checked post #2367150 - even though it has the same source as its parent, it didn't match the MD5 of what's currently posted in Pixiv, while the parent post does match the MD5.
What's with that, anyways? There wasn't even a resolution change. I don't see the point in reuploading in this situation unless you want to boost upload counts.
Maybe it's just a revision done by the artist themself ? The size of the two posts is actually different.
Jarlath said:
I just checked post #2367150 - even though it has the same source as its parent, it didn't match the MD5 of what's currently posted in Pixiv, while the parent post does match the MD5.
What's with that, anyways? There wasn't even a resolution change. I don't see the point in reuploading in this situation unless you want to boost upload counts.
Uhh...I think that's a different example to what I'm referring to. post #2367150 is uploaded first while post #2367852, the parent, is uploaded more recently so technically it's not his fault since he may have uploaded it the moment it came out but the artist decided to change it a few hours after and somebody else caught it and uploaded the revision.
If we're still on what I was talking about, searching for creayus in the user's upload will provide a more valid example.
Nitrogen09 said:
Maybe it's just a revision done by the artist themself ? The size of the two posts is actually different.
I just checked the timestamps again, and you're probably right. I've edited the post accordingly.
And that's a lot of reupload there in the past month or so.
I have no strong opinion on the subject of users converting files to PNG before uploading, but if anyone notices this sort of thing, it would be nice if they added the lossy-lossless tag where appropriate. It seems like a rather underpopulated tag that could provide useful data for whoever crafts our policy regarding such uploads.
Also, is anyone else troubled that 3/4 of a Builder's uploads have blank source fields? There's a "Source Your Upload" header in howto:upload with clear instructions for sourcing, including for scans. I don't think this is necessarily the sort of rule that should be enforced by moderator action or permanent records, but on the other hand, ignoring the posting guidelines on a regular basis isn't something that should be encouraged.
Updated
Calling @fallen_angel here since he is the one who uploaded these pics.
