• Notpunch - I'm making a forum system
    1,000 replies, posted
It's because they're using the webp format which may be better than jpeg but is still a lossy format which tends to make a lot of images look like crap. Plus it uses a video compression format as its base to my knowledge which means reds are even more compressed than other color channels. So in the case of a pink background such as that one, it'll look significantly worse than in another color.
I know this has been discussed many times but I think there's something wrong with the current auth system. Me and a few others are having some problems using Firefox and it sucks to have to disable privacy tweaks to be able to use the site. Any other site doesn't have the same kind of issue Knockout has. Maybe it's worth revisiting it some time later. I've tried disabling content blocking, uBlock, Privacy Badger but it still didn't work. My guess is that I have to disable the resistFingerprinting setting, but that's meh. I can still browse the site without an account so I don't care much about posting. I'd also like to ask if it's possible to make a theme variant or if there's an easy way to reduce the content width because it looks too big on my 27" monitor.
There are options for this, but yeah you need to be signed in. Hopefully the auth problems will be resolved shortly.
i like how when you scroll halfway down a thread in newpunch the header stays there so i can navigate back without having to scroll all the way back to the top. will this come over into knockout?
Dkdhsha HI just dropping in from bomile to say that I'm really happy to see this post I love your work @ everyone else I hear you, I'll be making a proper post once I have access to a computer again (probably monday
I can rate my own posts there! Truly this is the future my self esteem needs!
Might as well just set file size limits rather than converting images like this. Pixel art images like this are already likely to be very small, so lossy compression would be pretty pointless, in fact it could actually be harmful. I ran Laika's image through a lossy WebP convertor, and the lossy image was nearly twice(!) the size of the original PNG. So it not only looks worse, it takes up more space too. By comparison converting the image to a lossless WebP reduced the image to nearly half the size of the original PNG, with no sacrifice in quality.
http://puu.sh/D7LLE.jpg
I tested it with both webp60 and lossless. From 5712 bytes: WebP60 was 2976 bytes. Lossless WebP was 2976 bytes. What do you know, exactly the same. In addition, the WebP60 image looks nothing like the image Laika posted. WebP60 can actually preserve hard edges to an extent. The image Laika posted looks an awfully lot like the default lossy compression which looks like ass for pixel art images like that.
I'll report to inacio, I'd like perfectly lossless compression too whenever possible.
I'm using the official convertor provided by Google as part of libwebp. I'm not sure how you got twice the file size, your convertor might be based on an older version or a different implementation of WebP.
If you can provide several examples of lossless webp producing equal or very close filesizes for simple pixel art / flat imagery, it could help towards an implementation of it.
Alright, I'll get you some more stuff. Here's a collage I made of Laika's image under different formats: https://i.imgur.com/Wz3Ox2C.png If you click the image you'll see the differences in quality more easily. As you can see, every lossy format used increased the file size, while reducing in quality. I also used JPEG as an example of another lossy format. I did not use any other parameters other than the ones listed to produce the WebP images. I'll use these same formats for the other examples. I made 3 test images using GIMP just for a basic sense on how the different formats compare in different fields. https://i.imgur.com/RtVepvL.png From left to right, Test 1 (1 Solid Colour): PNG (Source): 1022 bytes JPEG: 939 bytes PNG (Optimized): 205 bytes WebP Lossy (75): 276 bytes WebP Lossy (60): 290 bytes WebP Lossless (75): 50 bytes WebP Lossless (60): 50 bytes Test 2 (6 Colours): PNG (Source): 1053 bytes JPEG: 2713 bytes PNG (Optimized): 388 bytes WebP Lossy (75): 524 bytes WebP Lossy (60): 522 bytes WebP Lossless (75): 114 bytes WebP Lossless (60): 114 bytes Test 3 (Gradient): PNG (Source): 62992 bytes JPEG: 1976 bytes PNG (Optimized): 53152 bytes WebP Lossy (75): 540 bytes WebP Lossy (60): 564 bytes WebP Lossless (75): 48752 bytes WebP Lossless (60): 40112 bytes Here the lossless formats beats the lossy formats in most cases, besides the last test with the gradient. In the first two tests the source PNG was the largest of the lot, until it was optimized, in which it beat all lossy formats in size. Not shown is that the lossy formats blurred the hell out of test 2, sacrificing quality with no gain. In the last test, all lossy formats produced an image which was on par with the quality of the lossless images, at a much reduced size. So for the majority of images which use lots of colours, like photos, it's clear to see lossy has it's advantages over lossless, but when used for simpler pixel art images, it's detrimental with no positive gains. For the last example I used this sprite of Megaman. https://i.imgur.com/WhixSIA.png Results: PNG (Source): 1643 bytes JPEG: 6351 bytes PNG (Optimized): 946 bytes WebP Lossy (75): 3900 bytes WebP Lossy (60): 3496 bytes WebP Lossless (75): 792 bytes WebP Lossless (60): 794 bytes Lossless, again, beats lossy with no loss in quality. In conclusion, Lossy WebP is not a one size fits all solution, you can't use it for everything and expect a smaller file size. When Inacio tested using it "even on plain colours" it's clear he didn't do it thorough enough. From the first test with the single solid colour, you can see how when comparing the unoptimized PNG with Lossy WebP might lead you to think how lossy is a good fit here. However when the PNG is optimized it clearly beats Lossy WebP. So final remarks, allow support for multiple formats, do not convert everything, implement a file size limit so people get to decide how crusty their images look. Hope this has been informative.
Well, you've convinced me. Great post. I'll have to give the image converter some more love.
Every time I try to create a thread in the videos section on knockout nothing happens and I am logged out?
People shouldn't be using Knockout until it's fully ready.
I'd give more weight if KO wasn't already more polished than this place.
KO threads are way too thick. in the same amount of space, FP shows 17 threads https://i.imgur.com/jBKJ2UJ.png While KO shows only 9 https://i.imgur.com/Vi7hMGp.png that's a lot of wasted space
I've heard a lot of feedback from people and the general sentiment I've gotten is that the threads are way too bloated. I agree that compressing it down or using what we currently have as a base is a better idea. There are a lot of design issues that need to be ironed out and people tend to be fickle with their first impressions. Losing the bloated yet claustrophobic feeling needs to be an important focus on the site design.
Also I guess it's a know bug atm that the "remove" button for avatar doesn't work? Using latest version of Firefox.
Can't log in using my google account. I haven't tried anything but firefox but also I'm probably not gonna switch over to chrome for an even newpunchier version of newpunch.
There's a warning in the login page, did you not read it? :p
I made a specific cookie exception for both recommended urls, turned of noscript and ghostery entirely, and turned off all of mozillas inbuilt tracker stuff.
have you seen the qa site thoughts on that
We can actually do some third party cookie blacklist detection client side, and at some point that login page will tell you that you have your browser misconfigured, but theres a hell of a lot of other stuff we need to work on before we get there. As for the incompleteness around the UI, thats because whats there is largely programmer art, I've been running around after the other devs tidying things up as I see them but my time is limited. I've got a cleaned up thread listing out on the QA branch, the actual post widgets really need some work to sharpen things up, especially around avatars and ratings. It's all being worked on and will improve over the next few weeks.
hop on qa and give it a go. let me know what you think
Which one is that again?
https://forums.stylepunch.club/
It's better but I'm wondering why have spaces between threads at all? On fp, threads don't have spaces between them yet it looks much cleaner. https://i.imgur.com/TODwSOQ.png Everything feels bloated for no reason. Like, even the FP homepage in streamlined an compact. I really prefer that. https://i.imgur.com/wUdh2wG.png
I think just updating the UI to have columns like FP (or other traditional forum software does) may be helpful.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.