This is the link to the image. It has 3.8mb. In my opinion that is way too much.
You must log in or register to comment.
Everyone fully missing the point here. This is the banner image for !linux@programming.dev (that’s not where we are right now for the record), and it has a normal JPEG size of 7.7MB. When it’s served as WebP it’s 3.8MB. OP is correct that this is very stupid and wasteful for a web content image. It’s a triple-monitor 1440p wallpaper that’s used verbatim, and it should instead be compressed down to be bandwidth-friendly. I was able to get it to 1.4MB at JPEG quality 80, and when swapping it out in dev tools and performing A/B testing I can’t tell the difference. This should be brought to the attention of a mod on that community so it can stop sucking people’s data for no reason.
Thank you!
I got it to 47 KB after resizing it to 850px by 239px, heh
Sorry for being a bit of a dick, I think you mean that the file “is 3.8MB”.
“mb” would mean millibit, 3.8millibit is an impossibly small file size, and would never exist practically (though I an sure that with some clever maths a zip bomb could be designed so that one bit of data could be compressed into 3.8millibits)
MB is the proper shorthand for MegaByte, a decent file size for a high quallity pucture, depending on the format and compression.
Unless we analyze the image, and determine the image format and compression settings we have no idea of if 3.8MB is a resonable size of the file or not, and the mods have hidden a rar file in the picture file, it is highly improbable that would be the case however.
Sorry for being a dick.
I’ll add some context for anyone who might be interested.
why does the poster image of c/linux have 3.8mb?
When speaking Portuguese (possibly Spanish as well) you would say it like this, a imagem tem….
It is quite common for native speakers of Portuguese (and probably Spanish) mix this up when speaking English.
source: I speak Portuguese
OP does not argue about ‘has’ vs ‘is’.
I’m just adding useful extra information to the thread.
Sorry for being a bit of a dick, I think you mean that the file “is 3.8MB”.
The sentence I was referring to in my original comment.
Edit: added context
Please stop purposefully misunderstanding people when the thing their trying to say is clear. Most annoying character trait one could have.
Which are you suggesting?
- that the image could be losslessly compressed more efficiently?
- that lossy compression should be used more aggressively?
- that there is extra data hidden in the file?
It’s 5120 px wide. Is this necessary?
That’s a question for a web developer, which I am not. I would expect it to be the max common resolution width. A quick Google shows that modern ultrawides are 5120x1440. So that’s probably why.
I’m a web developer.
Lemmy does not use the entire screen width. The way it has been embedded in the page means that image takes up only 850 pixels of horizontal space so it could be 5x smaller and no one would be able to see the difference.
Lemmy really should be automatically resizing the images (on the server) when they are uploaded, not every single time the community is viewed (in the browser).
