Rename jpeg_artifacts

BUR #17396 has been rejected.

create alias jpeg_artifacts -> compression_artifacts
create alias gif_artifacts -> compression_artifacts

We only want 1 tag to describe jpeg_artifacts, but we don't want to give people the impression that they can only use the tag on jpegs and not on filetype:avif , filetype:webp andsoforth...

I realize that these artefacts are visually distinct. However, having a separate tag such as gif_artifacts seems useless to me from a utilitarian pov. Keeping them separate could lead to additional metatags being made in the future such as webp_artifacts or formats which have not been invented yet.

I propose to rename all to compression_artifacts

Not sure about gif_artifacts but +1 for jpeg_artifacts.

Ehh... Compression artifacts in JPGs/WEBPs/MP4s are very different, visually, from compression artifacts found in GIFs or indexed PNGs.

As an example: here's a crop of post #6287079 with a white background added. The first version is unchanged, the second was indexed, and the third was exported as JPG. I turned the quality in each case (except the first) quite low to illustrate the point. You can't convince me these look close enough to warrant the same tag.

If anything, keep the JPG-like artifacts under compression_artifacts, and GIF-like ones under indexed_artifacts or something. I do realize that indexing is a form of compression, but I can't think of a better name.

Maybe deprecate gif_artifacts and use dithering and color_banding as appropriate?

Like KagayakuShiningGate says/demonstrates, JPEG artifacts and GIF artifacts are not visually equivalent (IMO, heavy JPEG artifacting is far uglier, for example). I'm tentatively open to implicating more specific tags to compression_artifacts, if other people find that useful. In any case, the *_artifacts tags should still only be used on images with severe artifacting, not on every single image that uses lossy compression.

KagayakuShiningGate said:

If anything, keep the JPG-like artifacts under compression_artifacts, and GIF-like ones under indexed_artifacts or something. I do realize that indexing is a form of compression, but I can't think of a better name.

"quantization_artifacts" is an option for GIF-like stuff.
I wouldn't lump those with the function-fitting based ones (jpeg style) which show up as distortion, color shift, and so on.
But I would support trimming it down to just those two groups (quantization and other). (Quantization is a sort of distortion but it's visually distinct.)

Does it really matter what kind of compression artifacts they are? This tag exists to filter out posts.

We often tend to overcomplicate things for no reason, and this discussion seems like one of those cases to me. Think about it, why would we want to have two separate tags for "this picture was compressed too much"? How does this separation benefit us in any way?

nonamethanks said:

Does it really matter what kind of compression artifacts they are? This tag exists to filter out posts.

We often tend to overcomplicate things for no reason, and this discussion seems like one of those cases to me. Think about it, why would we want to have two separate tags for "this picture was compressed too much"? How does this separation benefit us in any way?

Quantization artifacts have a distinct look compared to most other lossy compression artifacts and has at least nostalgic value to some people, or just personal preference. I think some artists even use it stylistically on purpose. I don't feel too strongly about it but I think it's a legitimate thing to search/exclude separately from general over-compression.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #17396 (forum #243844) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

the only utility for the tag I could see are jpg compression artifacts for images that were converted to another format

It's not for images where you can see artifacts when zooming in and tilting your screen, just images where the artifacts are clearly noticeable when viewing the image normally.