[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/cutegirls/ - Cute Girls

Cute girls and discussion

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

RULES | ONION ADDRESS | RELATED BOARDS

File: 1438879084398.png (77.57 KB, 359x359, 1:1, Compress_PDF.png)

 No.2206

You've been downloading like there's no tomorrow and now your drive is full. You want to download just one more girl while still avoiding having your collection scattered over several devices. Here are some of the tips I've used to save dozens of GB's.

-Sort all videos by size and view them as thumbnails. You'll easily spot duplicates without having to install special software.

-You just downloaded a model's full collection of 120 sets. Don't keep them all! There will be plenty of bad/filler sets, delete them.

-Unless you're viewing on a TV screen, shrink videos with sizes larger than 20MB/minute using SuperSimple Video converter to about 480p. You'll save up to 70% of the size while hardly noticing a difference in quality.

-Ditto for photos above 300KB. Shrink them using Fotosizer and save up to 70% of their space with quality appearing the same to the naked eye.

What other disk optimization tricks do you use?

 No.2223

>Unless you're viewing on a TV screen

Usually tv screens have same resolution as pc screens… unless you're doing it wrong and buy 4k tv before 4k monitor

>shrink videos with sizes larger than 20MB/minute using SuperSimple Video converter to about 480p

I hope you're not sharing your shrinked videos…

>Ditto for photos above 300KB. Shrink them using Fotosizer

I hope you're not sharing your shrinked photos…


 No.2226

>>2223

This.

Also, storage space is so cheap nowadays I really don't see the point of devaluating your collection just to shave off a few gigabytes.


 No.2228

For me it's a matter of convenience. Having my collection on an external device, much less over several external devices would drive me nuts when viewing/searching and also when backing up.


 No.2229

>>2228

Several HDDs? You can buy a 2 TB External HDD for less than $100 which covers all yours needs. I keep on it all my sets, videos + movies I got in the past decade.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Expansion-Portable-External-STEA2000400/dp/B00TKFEE5S/


 No.2230

>>2228

Learn into RAID and NAS, super convenient and reliable.


 No.2232

I dont worry about that,i never keep any file


 No.2289

Don't really see the point in compressing pictures any further, .jpeg is already a highly compressed format. It's unlikely that anyone is going to post the entire Vladmodels collection in RAW format!

Also, another vote here in favor of external drives (duly encrypted of course) for storage. It is amazing how cheap memory is these days, think back 10 years to what a state-of-the-art WinXP system was equipped with.


 No.2290

>>2289

Yes. However even producers don't get it how jpgs work.

Most of people tend to compress JPG to say 3Mpix size with 99% quality, but it would be much better if they used like 10Mpix with 50% quality. Try this out yourself. Especially studio photos would gain a lot of resolution without increase in file size.


 No.2293

File: 1439476888490.jpg (12.38 KB, 356x496, 89:124, 1380121027534.jpg)

>>2206

>You just downloaded a model's full collection of 120 sets. Don't keep them all! There will be plenty of bad/filler sets, delete them.

>shrink videos with sizes larger than 20MB

>Ditto for photos above 300KB. Shrink them using Fotosizer and save up to 70% of their space with quality appearing the same to the naked eye

HOLY SHIT YOU'RE A FUCKING CASUAL


 No.2342

>>2206

>>2293

This. Why would I shit on my collection, and make it look all fuzzy and low resolution on my 4k screen? As other Anons have noted, just buy a large external.


 No.2343

For people with reading difficulties who keep asking why, I've already answered on >>2228. Even one external device is too much. I don't feel like plugging and unplugging every time I want to check something. Meaning the whole collection must fit on the PC's HDD.

Moreover, internet where I live (and where many people live) is shit. I simply can't download a half gig TMTV/Silver set. That's why I always opt for minimized sets whenever available and yes >>2223, I do share them.


 No.2344

>>2343

You know you can keep an external HDD plugged in right? Why do you have to unplug it every time you use it? I have Steam on an external HDD and never unplugged it.

Just because you have slow internet doesn't mean you have to ruin the pictures and videos for the rest of us you selfish fuck.


 No.2345

>You know you can keep an external HDD plugged in right?

>I have Steam on an external HDD and never unplugged it.

Do you even know what OpSec is? And I'm not even discussing the inconvenience of moving the laptop around with a dangling device.

>I do share them.

>you selfish fuck

Contradiction much?

>quality appearing the same to the naked eye.

>ruin the pictures and videos

Do you even read before writing these answers?

>rest of us

The rest of you who don't have slow internet, but what about the rest of us you selfish fuck.


 No.2346

>>2345

What OpSec? You said you want everything to fit on a PC HDD now you're saying you want to move your laptop around. I think you're just bored and delusional, stop wasting everyones time, thank you.


 No.2349

File: 1439724071320.jpg (144.95 KB, 1500x1000, 3:2, merge.JPG)

Assuming you're not mentally retarded (eg. you practice OpSec and know a laptop is still classified as a PC), here's a challenge for skeptics: can you tell which is the original and which has 35% reduction in size? Feel free to zoom up to the original size (but not further) regardless of your screen's dimensions.


 No.2358

>>2349

Both of these pictures are the same size, literally. They have the exact same pixel width and height, which is why they're able to fit side by side. An original picture would be larger in height and width, and larger in file size. And yes, those of us with 2k and 4k monitors can see the difference on actually different pictures.


 No.2359

Everyone just stop talking. >>2293 is correct.


 No.2360

File: 1439755725356-0.jpg (378.39 KB, 800x1200, 2:3, bellak2.jpg)

File: 1439755725367-1.jpg (1.93 MB, 1200x1800, 2:3, bellak.jpg)

>>2349

>>2358

I'm going to upload an original picture found here, and the same one 33% reduced in size. Save and view them both at 1:1 ratio. If you aren't blind you should notice that the original is much sharper.


 No.2361

>>2358 is correct. BOTH images have been compressed from the original 1024 x768 resolution to fit side-by-side in a 1500x1000 images, so they look very similar. And, of course, this relatively old, low-resolution image is hardly what we are talking about.

The OP is clearly clueless about image processing, jpeg formats and compression artifacts.

Oh, and his comments on "OpSec" are laughable. OP, ever hear of a thing called "encryption"? If you aren't encrypting your collection, it is NOT private whether you have the drive plugged in or not.


 No.2362

>>2361

Thanks for elaborating. It's what >>2360 was meant to visually explain.


 No.2363

>>2361

Yeah when I heard he wants all his stuff on his PC Laptop for OpSec I started to think he's just full of shit, trolling or retarded so I just left him alone.

Holding sensitive data on an HDD on your machine is the worst OpSec because there's things stored in your motherboard, ram, bios. With an external HDD encrypted with TrueCrypt you can't do anything against that + there's nothing illegal with these models, I don't get it why he's so paranoid about OpSec when it comes to these sets.

>>2360

The difference it's like night and day, one is High Definition, the other looks like shit. People who resize these high quality pictures and share them with others are the worst kind of people.


 No.2367

File: 1439764534951-0.jpg (75.23 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, Crw_2453b.jpg)

File: 1439764534965-1.jpg (116.85 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, Crw_2453a.jpg)

>>2358

>>2360

Thanks for picking my bait dude. Now that you admitted they're so indistinguishable that you thought I was tricking, I present you with both photos in separate files. Of course had I done that fro the start you would've argued that the smaller sized one is so obviously worse.

Protip: If you want to pretend several people support your opinion make sure you don't post all comments within a few minutes of each other, and variate the writing style and punctuation. Oh and don't post "Everyone just stop talking. >>2293 is correct."


 No.2368

>>2360

This guy is absolutely correct.

Also what OP is forgetting is that many people like to zoom into certain areas and want them to be crisp.

Some guys like feet, others like hair, others tits or hands.

Even on a 1920x1080 monitor the difference is very noticable.


 No.2369

File: 1439767655164-0.png (188.14 KB, 450x600, 3:4, smaller_image.png)

File: 1439767655165-1.png (346.13 KB, 450x600, 3:4, larger_image.png)

>>2367

> I present you with both photos in separate files. Of course had I done that fro the start you would've argued that the smaller sized one is so obviously worse.

Quality depends not only on compression and resolution but on how many times the image has been previously saved as a JPG.

According to http://fotoforensics.com the larger photo has been recompressed a greater number of times than the smaller one.

So it would appear that vou've compressed the file on the right more times than the one on the left (causing quality degradation) in order to support your claim.

That's pretty dishonest.


 No.2372

File: 1439769169930.jpg (145.67 KB, 1018x1526, 509:763, compressed.jpg)

>>2368

I really feel low for doing this but I hope it'd help you understand how pathetic you look:

>>2367

OMG THIS GUY IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT HEY SHUT UP GUYS LISTEN TO THIS L33T PRO I JUST SAVED 80 GIGS AND MY RESOLUTION ACTUALLY DOUBLED!!!11!

That said, I already said you can zoom up to the original size (i.e pre-pixalation) and won't notice a diff. That makes it the same whether on a 1920x1080 monitor or a 19200x10800 monitor. I also suggest you stop arguing over something you (and your sockpuppets) obviously don't comprehend, you're sounding like the "you are listen Obama" lady.

>>2369

I never claimed there is zero quality degradation. I clearly stated that:

a) Difference is not visible to the naked eye

b) You shouldn't zoom past the original size level

Say guys, all I care about is my normal experience. I don't care if some hawk or forensics program views the image as of lesser quality. My subjective, human point of view (and yours) sees them as the same.

I also reject the false accusation of ruining the original image. Here's the first image on the thread https://8ch.net/cutegirls/res/244.html which you can examine yourself compressed from 253KB to 146KB, a 42% reduction.


 No.2375

>>2372

After comparing these side by side, your compressed image is close, but there's a loss in colors, more noticeable in dark browns in blacks like her hair and shoulders. It looks kind of grainy. That said, if you have no problem with the way these images look, by all means, compress your files, but please don't upload lossy images for other peoples collections, many of us do have 4k monitors, and do very much enjoy our quality. Most of us also don't mind storing all our lovely girls on external hard drives. It's really not an extra hassle. I have a lightweight laptop, with an external plugged into it all the time. If I need to pick it up, I just set the hard drive on top of the laptop and walk around with it. It's not any more cumbersome than carrying around the charging cable.


 No.2376

>>2367

There are actually 5 people here contradicting your statements, you're not arguing with one person.


 No.2378

File: 1439797216639.jpg (194.78 KB, 1152x1536, 3:4, 1439350605223-0.jpg)

>>2375

I think you're either under the placebo effect or have some sort of super-vision. I just compared them side by side again and I literally cannot tell which is the original and which is the reduced. Can you do me a favor and draw red circles over the affected areas?

I also said time and again the monitor's resolution doesn't matter even if you're viewing it on a cinema screen because you can zoom all the way up to the original size.

Here's another example, the first image from >>2271 reduced by 42%

https://media.8ch.net/cutegirls/thumb/1439350605223-0.jpg

I don't feel the same regarding external HDs. I always move around and when at home can use the laptop in bed where I often switch positions. You also completely ignored the slow internet and data caps problems which you clearly don't suffer from.

>>2376

I'm arguing with only two. These posts were made by the same person:

>>2293,>>2342,>>2343,>>2344,>>2346,>>2359,>>2361,>>2362,>>2363,>>2368.

Notice how he often spams 2-3 consecutive posts which begin by saying this guy is absolutely correct (referring to himself), then refers to shit, then flames. It's trivial to delete cookies and change IP.


 No.2379

>>2376

>>2367

Indeed. I'm sure the post just got bumped to the top, and drew attention.


 No.2391

File: 1439849028858.jpg (21.88 KB, 295x378, 295:378, die.jpg)

>>2342

>and yes I do share them


 No.2396

>>2378

I am >>2359 and that is the only post I've made in this thread. No one here fails to understand your points, it's just that your points are shit. Don't zoom in? Really? The internet is already awash with motherfuckers re-encoding and transcoding everything. Kill yourself.


 No.2399

My only previous post was >>2361. You're hardly the first to complain about image sizes or to assert that a certain resolution/image quality was "good enough". This is a perpetual argument between the knowledgable and the noobs who've just discovered they can compress an image.

I remember the same complaints when image sizes jumped from 6-10K to 25-30K, then again when they jumped to 100K, and again when they jumped to 250K, and again when they jumped to 1M and now again when they're 3-4M. Every time, "OMG, how are we gonna download and store these HUGE images." And, of course, we've spent the last 20 years cursing every moron with a compression program.

You're gonna shit when you discover that some studios in the adult modeling world are already publishing images with 10Kx7K resolution that are over 10M per image.

I suggest you find another hobby. You can't keep up with this one.


 No.2400

File: 1439893168162.jpg (24.13 KB, 800x1000, 4:5, thumbs up.jpg)

You're gonna fall in love with this folks. I just learned about QuickStego, a free steganography software which enables stashing data in an image. That means you can convert any boring 200-300KB pic into an all-awesome 10MB masterpiece by injecting random data in it. And if you're really dedicated you can bump this into 1GB/pic and fill up your 2TB HDD in no time. Best of all? There will be zero improvement in image quality no matter how hard you squint! Go grab your copy at http://www.quickcrypto.com/free-steganography-software.html

You're welcome.


 No.2404

File: 1439925613633.png (37.38 KB, 454x2071, 454:2071, the_numbers.png)

OP, not all content creators&publishers are cognizant of available optimizations that save them and their customers bandwidth&storage costs.

The only way to circumvent the collectors mantra of 'do no harm' is to petition the studios themselves and show them there's a possible ROI if they picked up on how to publish using variable jpeg compression. What justification can be made for using over zealous quality presets on solid color backgrounds and out of focus landscapes? [besides those whom hide their watermark technology in them]

This doesn't help material that has already been released or studios that have closed. IMO the current situation seems muddled between the collectors [purists, OCD] & the affiliate money chasers [means to an end] and I'd hazard a guess that the collectors don't want inferior copies so it would be in the best interest of chasers to give them what they want but if some admit they are fine with missing files/watermarks/resizes/subjective recompressing so they'll cater to them.


 No.2405

>>2404

>>2399

Well, sure, there are ways to save size when publishing the image, that keep the quality intact, but it is great having 10k images, the detail you can get when you zoom into 1:1 pixel ratio is amazing. And yes, having a higher density monitor does make a difference in your viewing experience, you're able to pick out details more than a lower resolution screen, because there is more detail for your eyes to pick up, in the same size screen.

Also, my posts were

>>2342

>>2358

>>2360

>>2375

>>2379

And I was switching between my phone and laptop, depending on what I was doing around the house


 No.2409

>>2405

I don't buy into the high ppi hype yet, my monitor and portable device are 93 and 220ppi yet they don't look perceivably different and a 4K@27" display is only 163 ppi. (viewing >4K stills in portrait) If I'm going to purchase a $700 display in the future it better be OLED.

what software do you view with?

I find honeyview portable adequate with Fade&Bicubic or Lanczos interpolation enabled.


 No.2415

A disk space optimization trick I used was to kick out the bloated monstrosity of Windows 8 and installed a lightweight Linux OS instead.

All that D:\ recovery partition was freed up for a start-off.


 No.2416

>>2415

Puppylinux ftw


 No.2443

I ain't need no compression yo I got 2TB.


 No.2456

>>2416 Puppy is great :) and DamnSmallLinux. Not sure I'd recommend either to noobs coming direct from Winbloat tho'.


 No.4084

>>2206

For the sake of collectors everywhere just buy a 6 Terabyte external and stop this madness.


 No.4085

>>2290

JUST NO!


 No.4216

File: 1443590662166.jpg (8.24 KB, 110x161, 110:161, 1443501354768 - Copy.jpg)

>You'll save up to 70% of the size while hardly noticing a difference in quality.

>hardly noticing a difference in quality.

>hardly noticing

Wow, that is the most moronic advice I have ever heard. I have gotten into several arguments with blind anons who couldn't tell that Selena Gomez's face was shopped onto a pornstar's body, but you must really be eyesight-impaired. Please shut your whore mouth.


 No.4217

File: 1443590980918.jpg (45.08 KB, 611x901, 611:901, cats.jpg)

Also:

>The year of our lord 2016 (-3mo)

>Caring about storage space

>tfw


 No.12859

File: 1452305496097.jpg (52.29 KB, 720x540, 4:3, 030_.JPG)

Don't fall for any of this bullshit. JPG (or more exactly: JFIF) files can't be edited and saved - you always reCOMPRESS them, hence presenting two different versions of one picture as a JPG instead of a PNG just once again shows that OP has dangerous half-ass knowledge about the formats. There are VERY rare exceptions and I'd be surprised if any of you can actually show me an uncompressed JPG - most software couldn't deal with that anyway.

Whining about plugging in/out your external harddrive? I have news for you: at least my computer case can (and does) hold 8 hard drives, not just only 1 or 2. And each of them is 3 TiB in size. Eat this! Oh, and of course I also got external drives.

Not finding duplicates? Of course you won't when you alter all your data instead of leaving them untouched. Looking at Explorer's thumbnails? That's brilliant when you really have no way to get third party software, otherwise you're an idiot. For everything precisely any file hash calculator will get all duplicates (and this can also be spanned across mulitple drives, of course). And after that, search for "SimilarImages", which will also compare picture content and as such find resized/recompressed picture duplicates.

Do yourself a favor and just use NTFS's compression if you're that low on resources. Thanks to people like you I have to deal with resized AND recompressed videos that are fine for your universe, but look crappy on 1920x1080 when sitting 40cm in front of it. Just don't ever breed.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]