pouët.net

TL;DR: using 400x300 (or sticking with the correct aspect ratio of most modern demos, 400x225) is borderline insane. It's 2018, can we please allow for larger screenshots on Pouet to showcase the demos we make? While we're at it — how about allowing more than one? Please? :)

tl;dr I sent an email to Redhound about this every few months trying to find out how much disk space we have on scene.org and never got an answer :)

(https://github.com/pouetnet/pouet2.0/issues/21)

great to hear that it's only borderline insane

Gargaj: :D Well, I'm sure we can rummage up some more space. Also: it's not like the amount of releases are so incredibly high these days that the screenshot sizes are what's breaking the storage bank.

That depends on whether the next step will be "but why don't we allow HD/4K lossless" :) We're at around 3 gigs with the 64k limitation; I'm assuming we'd go 4x-5x of that even if we limit at 1080p and force-convert to JPG - still not crushingly huge, but we're not on the main fileserver, we're on the hosting server, so I wanted to get a good overview of what we can or can't do before we begin expanding.

Another thing to consider is how once we make that step, there'll be a reasonable request to replace all the old screenshots -> should have an automated step -> intermediate storage of arbitrary files until they get approved -> can of worms, sadly.

The can of works can thankfully be split in two: 1) what to do with any new additions starting date X, and 2) what to do with existing releases.

Yes, I'm sure there are quite a few who would like to update their releases right away, but I believe a ton of them will not care either. :) (not until a lot of the releases around them start to have better screenshots, of course :)

Space-wise though, I'll ping Redhound too.

I'm strongly in favour of allowing new screenshots to break the current (tiny) size limits and allowing old screenshots to be replaced via manual request. Personally I just want to be able to upload bigger screenshots for future releases, and I'm not particularly concerned about old ones.

That'd be the plan, but as said it's far from obvious :) As you can tell from the Github issue timestamp, this has been on my mind for a long time :)

About the storage-size:
Send them some 2TB-HDD (or the money for it, so they can get sth compliant to their running server-system) and that´s that then i´d say! It´s less than 100€ for that amount of hdd-space!
But they should be fine with the additional download-traffic coming with that change, aswell, sth noone mentioned yet! ;)

For glöperators sanity i´d go with future uploads in new bigger size, but old releases keep what they´ve got! maybe allow for some few releases like the top 100 demos or sth alike! while f.e. "tube" doesn´t need a bigger screenshot...the one it got has all the pixels the original-resolution has already! :D

P.S.: just thought about it...all the mirrors would need such a 2TB-HDD then aswell...ok, i didn´t say anything at all i guess! ;)

Do you get summoned on the mention of the word "obvious"?

But but... a crappy screenshot makes you click on the crappy youtube sooner! :D

What's interesting is that even after you reached this obvious conclusion at the end of writing your post, you still chose to click the "Submit"-button. Fascinating. :)

I'd say a single 720p shot should do the trick. If you can't sway/convey more pixels ain't gonna help.

Any projektbeschreibung on this issue?

320x200 feels sad nao.

Why don't we just shove it all on S3? We're talking 2-3 USD a month at most for that kind of data.

400x300 64kb compo, anyone?

Use https://img.youtube.com/vi/YOUTUBEID/maxresdefault.jpg whenever there is a YouTube extralink:

+ easy to implement
+ no storage issue
+ works out of the box for past releases

- governance issues

in case it hasn't been mentioned before: pouet is one of the few sites left with reasonable loading times. there probably are some ppl accessing pouet from countries where broadband still is a wet dream. so, with 64kbit downlink, pouet is usable! nice! we probably want to keep it this way.

The larger screenshots would be available on-click, not immediately when loading a page.

sounds good. in that case my ipad1 and iphone4 will still be ablento cope with it =)

gloom:
i didn´t say anything at all about storage, but there was sth about traffic and glöperators-sanity in my post, so of course i still posted it! There are other posts that really didnt say anything!

If i really annoy you that much why don´t you just blacklist me?! :p

640x480 on the main prod pages would be nice, when I screenshotted these two I had to convert them from indexed color to RGB to avoid really ugly downscaling. They probably ended up 3-4x larger than the original 640x480 pngs in the process.

As someone who still does 99% of my browsing on a 1280x800 or 1280x1024 screen though, I agree with keeping the larger shots behind a click-through. Even 720p on the main prod page would really mess up the formatting for me.

jco: reasonable loading times isn't 100% tied to the size of the prod page images though. And even if they were to be bigger (in resolution), that doesn't necessarily mean they'll get insanely large (in size). There are many ways to keep the page loading fast without resulting to binary choices made 18 years ago. If 400x300/64kb was acceptable in 2000 (or somewhat later — I can't recall, to me it's always been like this), then it's fair to assume that most people's broadband connection, screen resolution and computing speed have also gone up.