While importing some images from iNaturalist to Wikimedia Commons, I noticed that most of the images have been downsampled to 2048 pixels wide (as the “original” size). While I’m sure that iNaturalist doesn’t want to store hundreds of thousands of 20 megapixel photos, 2048 is pretty small, and it’s …

It seems like iNat has at least these groups of users with respect to photo quality: High quality enthusiasts - more resolution, higher quality, photoshop users. Maybe folks in topic: Data Hoarders Anonymous ? Medium quality - smart phone or point-and-shoot camera users, maybe not aware of advanced…

[image] vreinkymov: It seems like iNat has at least these groups of users with respect to photo quality: 4: All of the above. I use a gradient of quality standards and gear in my never-ending quest to reduce my “dang, it got away” list.

Good point! I forgot about the safety shot , it’s thankfully something that’s not needed with plant photos.

I do crop, but I still want the quality to allow for zooming in for more detail, instead of pixelated :sob: Adding the original wide view as a second picture gives more info.

We took a look into this recently. [image] markg729: Since bandwidth and hosting costs are now free ( https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/49564-inaturalist-licensed-observation-images-in-the-amazon-open-data-sponsorship-program/ ) for iNat photos under CC licenses, those CC photos could be stored a…

[image] tiwane: Using different sizes/quality for licensed or non-licensed images was deemed too complicated and would create problems if, say, someone changed their default photo license from a Creative Commons license to all rights reserved. On the second issue here, my suggestion would be:…

FWIW there’s a jpg encoder that is comparable to webp in quality/size according to comparison tests from a few people and works with existing jpg decoders. https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

Hello, I would like to advocate the idea to remove the 2048x2048 limit, or possibly to replace it by the UHD limit (i.e. 3840x2160 pixels), along with a weight limit to something like 5MB. Indeed, in my view, to limit storage and bandwidth, and to preserve a maximum of details, it is more important…

[image] simben: I would like to advocate the idea to remove the 2048x2048 limit, or possibly to replace it by the UHD limit (i.e. 3840x2160 pixels), along with a weight limit to something like 5MB. For what it’s worth, my impression is that something around 3600 × 2400 is the maximum meaningf…

@ tiwane : I agree with both @ simben and @ aspidoscelis . Increasing the resolution limits to something like 3600x2400 while decreasing the compression from 99% to something in the range of 90-95% would make a significant improvement in the quality of the images without increasing file size or adding…

Increase max image size (from 2048 x 2048 pixels)

Feature Requests

aspidoscelis October 6, 2022, 10:24pm 27

Topic		Replies	Views
Can we allow users to select between better image quality or more images in an observation General	14	782	October 20, 2023
Clarification on photo resizing vs resolution General question	25	2722	January 3, 2024
Image upload size limit warning should be dropped as Images are automatically resized anyway Feature Requests declined	17	1720	March 14, 2023
A plea to crop your photos! General	131	6646	September 25, 2022
A simple way to save iNat money? Cropping / Compiling images General	52	3540	March 4, 2021

Increase max image size (from 2048 x 2048 pixels)

Related topics