this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
70 points (98.6% liked)
196
16233 readers
1735 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From less than 700kb in size to more than 8 megs for only double the resolution ? That's why wikipedia feel sluggish sometimes. Why even changing it to a worse file format ? What's the points ?
The resolution is actually quadrupled by doubling the value of both axes. In this case going from 1500x1424 (2.1MP) to 3504x3327 (11.7MP) multiplies the total number of pixels by 5.4
With the same level of jpeg compression you'd expect it to jump from 700KB to roughly 4MB. Since both images are the same file format, the rest of the file size difference is likely attributable to less jpeg compression being used in the larger image.
Images on articles are resized. The original size of the image has no bearing on how fast the article loads.
I'm pretty sure you only get the full resolution image when clicking on it, not right away when loading the page. That would at least explain why you can download images in multiple resolutions from Wikipedia.
All the edit actually did is brighten the image. My guess is they used a sooty image editor.
It's also the same file format.
8MB is too much for web. 1MB is the upper limit of what i consider ok.
Yeah, but the article itself uses a downsized version of the image. Actually being able to see a lot more detail when opening the full size one is nice.
but what if someone wants to see a picture of someone holding a selfie stick in 4k?