Suggestion/Question: Low Quality Pet Images

[Ferus]

So I was making a chart yesterday of all the staff pet artists and comparing them, but I wanted to use the high quality, transparent images to do that. I've looked at the old staff pets a lot, whether it was just reorganizing, boredom, etc. But since I wasn't around during the actual release I've never seen them in the high quality images until I started making them that way. And I realized just how much I was missing out on. :c I feel like especially the staff litter the artists put a lot of work into, and the difference between the two images makes me sad.

I'm /guessing/ the low-def images are to save server space because they probably take up a lot when they're hi-def. I dunno, just assuming.

Is there any way that would work that would get the high-quality images more screen time? Maybe using them in the archives? That would only be one image per pet right? As nice as it would be to have the high quality images in the groups I can see how that would cause problems.

I just think its really a shame that these pets lose so much quality to become smaller file sizes. Markings get blurred, details get lost. The transparency is probably a lot of that, but I'd trade the transparency for the quality any day. Just some examples below:

[Sorren Fey]

They look exactly the same for me.

I think this might be a result of some settings in your browser which reduce the quality to make loading faster.

[Mys]

^Sorren's right. It looks fine on my laptop. Are you on a mobile device? I first saw this post on my Nook, and I did see some differences in the pet's appearance when I was on it.

[Ferus]

No, I'm on a laptop and I have no settings that change image quality or anything. The images simply ARE different qualities. One looks like it was saved as a JPEG the other a PNG. I guess if no one else sees it then it doesn't matter either way, but this is what I see without the zooming in every time I see a pet that isn't posted by someone:



But like I said, if no one else even notices it then I guess its a moot point.

EDIT: This is a good actual example right here that I found in the Archive issues thread:

On the January 2009 Rat page I see this:



I don't think there's any difference between the rats.

These are the rats in better quality X3 One of them have a more creamy belly and butt and brown eyes. The other one is pure white with red eyes (albino) =3

I couldn't tell the difference for a long time either XD

It's not even possible to tell that one has red eyes and one has brown in the archive images.

[nickjr]

They're all .jpg images (as shown by the file extensions on the ends of all of those image urls) ^^ but apparently, some were saved in very high quality just like .png files (which is definitely possible), while others were saved in lower quality.

[Sorren Fey]

I see the differences in your screenshot but there are none on the actual pets for me. It is not that I just do not notice them, they are just not there. I have made a screenshot of the same pets in your first post zoomed in:



Zoomed in there are minimal differences but they are hardly noticeable.


The archive images are actually less of a quality to make loading faster and do not really relate to your initial issue.

Edit:
Okay, after a bit of googling I think that it is probably not a problem with your browser but rather seems to be a problem with your service provider.

This is a reply to someone who had the same problem as you that I found:

Apparently, you are experiencing "image recompression" through your service provider. When you connect over a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) such as Sprint or Vodafone Mobile Connect, the images are downgraded to reduce the amount of data that is transmitted. The ISP modifies every HTTP request to inject javascript that produces the tooltip you describe.

You should be able to turn off compression with the Vodafone Mobile Connect tool.

Here is also a post that might be helpful:
http://www.evdoforums.com/thread1053.html

[Princess Luna]

After seeing Sorren's zoomed in versions of that dog, I can see a difference in image quality, but it's nowhere near as bad as your zoomed in versions, Ferus. It's definitely a problem on your end.

[Ferus]

I can see a small difference to but its way better than mine. I use Chrome but am attempting to fix this. I'm glad this isn't on the sites end though. This doesn't look like its going to be easy to fix though. >>