/ > /fap/ > Thread 15789 Age: 67.56d Health: 0% Posters: 4 Posts: 9 Replies: 4 Files: 1+2
>> Anon 71783 i just noticed that imgur is doing a retarded move that reminds me of what tumblr did (that eventually caused everybody to stop using tumblr) https://blog.imgur.com/2019/10/14/discon tinuing-support-for-nsfw-reddit-subsectio ns/ you're now required to log in to view adult images on imgur [IMG] [G] Tumblr Questions~!.swf (92.4 KiB) 666x666, Compressed (Deflate). 118 frames, 20 fps (00:06). Ver8, AS1/AS2. Network access: Text: Bitmaps: Yes. Audio: Video: [find in archive]
>> Anon 71784 this is a sign of things to come so if you know of any galleries that you care about back those up before imgur decide to delete them. post good alternatives if you have them btw. i don't really know of any myself.
>> Anon 71786 gallery format like imgur? I don't know of any. there's place ike catbox.moe though
>> Anon 71790 Here's a throwaway imgur account you can use to save your stuff from that shit site. blamblamblam999 password: koolio111
>> Anon 71819 >># https://imgchest.com/ It's kinda like imgur before they became popular and took on their current shitty redesign. And it specifically allows NSFW as long as you tag it as such.
>> Anon 71876 >># holy shit, this is great. looks like the domain is 13 years old too so seems reliable as well. their about page says they don't delete images after a certain time period. i just uploaded a 7 MiB jpg image anonymously (no account) and tried downloading it again (opened a new tab in private mode to make sure cookies etc were cleared). the downloaded image had the same SHA-256 hash. that means they don't re-encode jpg files in worse quality, something that imgur actually does (never upload a jpg to imgur, only png, don't know why they think it's ok to reencode a jpg just because it's a jpg) thanks for telling me about that site, interesting that imgur grew much bigger when imgchest seems to be superior. maybe there's bandwidth reasons or hotlinking reasons or whatever else that could have happened in 13 years but right now imgchest is absolutely a worthy alternative to imgur. can't believe this is the first time i've seen the site i just wonder if they have a special stance on uploaded NSFW content when it's 100% fantasy (3D animated or drawn). if their ToS is to be taken literally they would allow loli but not guro/rape hentai. i bet they were writing this ToS with real life photos in mind but it would have been nice with some clarification. >Image Chest does not allow the following types of images to be uploaded. >Images which contain involuntary pornography or nudity. >Images which violate copyrights or patents are not allowed. >Images which contain gruesome scenes, such as death or mutilations. >images which violate the privacy of the individuals depicted. >Images which are considered illegal in your country.
>> Anon 71877 wait, spoke too soon about them not reencoding jpgs. just tried again and the jpg had shrunk from 7 MiB to 6.72 MiB. damn, disappointing that they also destroy jpg images. guess it was queued for shrinking before. going to upload the shrunk 6.72 MiB jpg and see if they shrink it again.
>> Anon 71878 >># ok, the shrunk jpg that i reuploaded was not shrunk again (they probably recognize the hash of the file that they are already hosting). so it's at least good that they don't keep reducing the quality of JPG if they already have done it once. interestingly enough i also tried with two PNG files above 4 MiB, one with DPI info in it (dots per inch) and one without, and BOTH where actually modified to be a little smaller and the DPI info was stripped. so in conclusion i guess imgchest.com doesn't support lossless file uploading but still seems to be a good service. unless you can do that with an account? i've only tried uploading anonymously note that the png QUALITY is still lossless, i know this because if i download their modified PNG and re-save it as a PNG and also re-save the original PNG to compare the resulting files i get the same SHA-256 for both. so even if the file you upload gets modified the actual content of the file does not (this is only true for PNG of course, not JPG, unless there's some magical new way to copy and compress unmodified JPG data that I don't know about). tried uploading a 19.5 MiB gif image and it was also modified somehow, still 19.5 MiB so maybe they just changed the image metadata. i can't reproduce the same SHA256 however so i don't know if the gif quality is preserved without loss like png is. tried uploading a 468 bytes gif image and they modified it too. into a 510 bytes gif image, it grew larger! so now we know that they ALWAYS modify your uploaded image, even if the end result becomes larger. they don't support webp images, i think it's high time sites start to roll out support for that. but i'll admit that i havent really warmed to webp yet either, but it is a superior format and should be supported going forward for those that wish to use it. checked webm and swf as well, can't upload those (no surprise).
>> Anon 71879 because i just had to know i broke apart the original gif and the downloaded gif into pngs stripped of metadata and the combined hash was different, although the bytes only differed by 3. so uploading gifs to imgchest.com is not lossless in neither file container nor quality, at least it appears that the quality is affected too? i can't be sure, hm if i pick just some random frames to compare on their own the SHA256 does match (including the last and first frame) so maybe it is just my gif to pngs conversion that screws up a single frame somewhere. you know what, it's probably safe to say that GIF uploads have lossless quality after all, even if the file itself gets modified.