• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    25
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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 ?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      282 months ago

      That’s why wikipedia feel sluggish sometimes

      Images on articles are resized. The original size of the image has no bearing on how fast the article loads.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      242 months ago

      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.

    • AatubeOP
      link
      fedilink
      92 months ago

      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.

    • @verstra
      link
      52 months ago

      8MB is too much for web. 1MB is the upper limit of what i consider ok.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        102 months ago

        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.