Profile Picture is too small. 3kb!.

[Karla Sleutel]

Hello. I decided to change my pic., added a new one, sized about 50kb, yet it was resaved to just 3kb. It was working fine last year.

[vinifera]

try save/upload it as PNG not JPG

[D.Draker]

A very nice picture, regardless of the size. When I added mine, I did upload a jpeg, all was fine.

Could be the new limit, we'd have to wait for an official response.

[D.Draker]

I think I'll hold off with my picture! I don't want that size. 

[Karla Sleutel]

On 1/24/2025 at 11:08 AM, vinifera said:

try save/upload it as PNG not JPG

Woudn't png drastically reduce the quality?

[Rod Steel]

What we figured out from this topic so far:

Karla - super gorgeous lady.

D.Draker - a true CHAD.

Woudn't png drastically reduce the quality?

No. PNG is high quality format.

Edited January 26 by Rod Steel

[vinifera]

jpg is compressed (loses quality)
png is loseless (high quality)

Edited January 26 by vinifera

[Klemper]

23 hours ago, vinifera said:

jpg is compressed (loses quality)
png is loseless (high quality)

Wouldn't png look much worse than jpg at just 50kb?

[Tripredacus]

PNG is a vector format. Putting a raster file into it has no bearing on quality. This lossless thing seems solely based on the fact that you can set quality % for JPEG but PNG doesn't have this option. So the lossless aspect is lost if you are converting from a JPG or putting a JPG into the file before saving. It doesn't magically increase the quality of the source. The only instances where PNG is "lossless" is when it is the default save option for source images (from camera or scan) to raster or for using the vector capability. PNG should be larger than JPG since PNG should save shape information.

For OP, your source image dimensions are smaller than the dimensions that the forum is currently using. So the image looks bad quality because it is being zoomed. PNG does not offer any sort of blending and only supports lossless scaling with the vector objects and not a raster source (or fonts in my experience).

[Karla Sleutel]

13 hours ago, Tripredacus said:

For OP, your source image dimensions are smaller than the dimensions that the forum is currently using. So the image looks bad quality because it is being zoomed. PNG does not offer any sort of blending and only supports lossless scaling with the vector objects and not a raster source (or fonts in my experience).

In short, thanks, but no. Long story. My original image from the phone was about 5mb, which the forum wouldn't accept. I resized it to 807px and 49kb (see the details).

And even then, it still gimped the quality down to 3kb!

[Karla Sleutel]

On 1/26/2025 at 12:54 PM, vinifera said:

jpg is compressed (loses quality)
png is loseless (high quality)

Lossless, obviously, requires higher file size. We are talking the mere 3kb size for a profile pic.

[vinifera]

she is right
my "new" avatar was degraded to 5kb
 

[D.Draker]

On 1/27/2025 at 9:38 PM, vinifera said:

she is right
my "new" avatar was degraded to 5kb

It seems it's the new low limit, like I already assumed above.

The moderators' team do their best, but it's probably done to reduce the storage costs on the server.

 

[Saxon]

12 hours ago, vinifera said:

she is right

Son, women, girls are always right, even when they aren't.

And in this case especially, since the obvious degradation happened.

No more decent quality pics of the marvellous @Karla Sleutel, sucks.

[Saxon]

11 hours ago, D.Draker said:

It seems it's the new low limit,

Looks to me like that, too. Some time ago, I also started to notice the new low limit for individual attachments, even when the overall attachment limit is far from over.