/ > /fap/ > Thread 15789

Age: 67.56d   Health: 0%   Posters: 4   Posts: 9   Replies: 4   Files: 1+2

>> Anonymous 18oct2019(fr)19:36 No. OP P1

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/discontinuing-support-for-nsfw-reddit-subsections/

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: No. Text: No.
Bitmaps: Yes. Audio: No. Video: No.
[find in archive]

>> Anonymous 18oct2019(fr)19:40 No. OP P2

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.

>> Anonymous 18oct2019(fr)20:03 No. A P3R1

gallery format like imgur? I don't know of any. there's place ike catbox.moe though

>> Anonymous 18oct2019(fr)23:26 No. B P4R2

Here's a throwaway imgur account you can use to save your stuff from that shit site.

blamblamblam999
password: koolio111

>> Anonymous 21oct2019(mo)01:31 No. C P5R3

>>71786
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.

>> Anonymous 24oct2019(th)11:22 No. OP P6R4

>>71819
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.

>> Anonymous 24oct2019(th)11:29 No. OP P7

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.

>> Anonymous 24oct2019(th)13:31 No. OP P8

>>71877
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).

>> Anonymous 24oct2019(th)13:56 No. OP P9

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.