Wikipedia talk:Preparing images for upload

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Kunja kheda ?????????? village tehsil kumbhraj district use in central region of india Devend meena (talk) 04:49, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Video Wikipedia talk:Preparing images for upload

file tidak sesuai dengan saran?

Hmm, this would be much more convincing if it were not for the fact that the image "with title" is 1556 bytes, and the image "without title" is 1932 bytes. * sigh * This really Image: Covalent.png again, is not it? Ã,;) - John Owens 21:41 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Ah ha, you associate the image "untitled" but not with "by title", I'm sure that's what it is this time. At least they have the same number of colors.) - John Owens

I have a very good image optomizer, can compress images very well. I compressed smiley faces with no visible difference up to 1,108 bytes on my PC. -fonzy

I get it up to 1,012 bytes, and "by title" only goes down to 1.496. Much better, for example why you should not include the title. - John Owens

Here I am learning as I go along. At least I can make all the new user errors, so it's all covered in this page. I'm mucking about with the interlacing/no interlacing option with Paint Shop Pro under windows and according to the screen the image file size information is exactly the same! I thought it was a bit odd, but tired and thought I would worry about it in the morning. When I came to solve the problem today everyone who is good you have done a lot of work already :-) I love wikipedia! Theresa knott

Maps Wikipedia talk:Preparing images for upload

discussion from the village pump

Moved from village pump

Hai

I'm trying to reduce the size of the uploaded image, anyone gets experience about it. I am bound to trim it in the offline Graphic Converter, then load it, but the new upload is bigger, though it's still a truncated version of... old help! TonyClarke 11:40 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Do you mean Pictures: Hobies.jpg and Pictures: Trimhobies.jpg? Because the cropped image must be smaller than the original image. Agil uploads a scaled version of the Image: Hobies.jpg which is much smaller (pixel-wise and byte-wise) than the original. What if my rescale is trimmed for you? - Tim Starling 12:13 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, finish now. I adjust the level a bit too. Only return if you do not like it.

Image compression is a bit of a dark art. If you re-compress JPEG images, there will be more loss of quality than its value.

Yes, I know. I'll ask you for a higher quality image (if you have one), but it's too late here on UTC 10 ground, and I just use the modem so the multi-megabyte image file is a bit annoying. - Tim Starling 00:15 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia: How to keep the image file size as small as possible can help. --Menchi 15:20 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

End of moved text

Village kunja kheda aad in Google Devend meena (talk) 04:59, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

some other rules from Wapcaplet

I have not had any discussion at all, but some of the practical rules I use when doing website graphics work:

• Use the appropriate image format
  • jpg for still images with lots of color and/or subtle color areas.
  • png for diagrams, line drawings, images with multiple colors or few subtle color variations. For very small images (below 50x50 or more), png may be best for any situation, as it maintains good clarity at small sizes. (not lossy)
• Reduce the number of colors for png. If the image has only black or white or very little in it, you might be able to cut it to an 8-bit or lower color depth. In fact, if cutting an 8-bit image looks really bad, it probably should jpg instead. Never use a 24-bit png unless you need near-print quality (which means never, if you're just designing for the web).
• Find good freeware or shareware compression tools. There are many that will let you compare different levels of compression when you change it; You can get a good tradeoff between quality and file size this way.
• The most obvious: Create a smaller image. Trim to frame the subject well, or resize/resamp the image to a lower resolution. Somewhere around 200 pixels wide or high is usually enough for most images for the web. More than that, and files start getting bigger, and running from the edge of the user's browser window.

Hope this helps some people. - Wapcaplet 19:26 30 May 2003 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

jpeg size reduction

Why does not the article mention good JPEG file size, JPEG Cleaner? It does not aggravate the image quality, it just removes useless data. I'm not the only one who likes it. -Soon. 14:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think we're just a little nervous about any technology that actually changes the image content. All the PNG compressors mentioned here do not change the image at all - they are identical. JPEG has a tendency to be muddy and funky when you play around with them repeatedly, compressing and decompressing. I have never heard of JPEG Cleaner; I do not know if it's useful or problematic or anything, but that's the reason of general distrust of JPEG modifications. In addition, changes to photographic images are often subtle and difficult to note. Images may be damaged beyond recognition. It's easier to leave JPEGs as normal.

Everything said, I'll see. latch | khan 08:48, 2004 10 Jul (UTC)

And now that I've checked it out, I see that my comment above is completely irrelevant, because JPEG Cleaner only removes extra metadata. Some of these --- embedded previews, for example --- can be used, but the date, type of exposure, camera-information information embedded by many digital cameras may be very useful. Is there a way to configure the falling information? If so, dropping excessive things can certainly help. latch | khan 08:51, 2004 10 Jul (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

reprocess the saved image

What about bots via archives of Wikipedia and processing all PNG with OptiPNG? It will demand a lot of CPU, though. Etz Haim 22:59, August 25, 2004 (UTC)

This will most likely be in vain. If we really need to save disk space it will be more effective to compress everything at the database level than to re-compress our png up to a few percent. Joshua.leahy (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

anti-aliasing?

Should we really downplay anti-aliasing? In my opinion it greatly enhances the easthetics and 'visual feel' of most diagrams and should be used wherever possible. Diagrams usually do not consume nearly as much as photo space. This may only make up some of the total disk space. -Soon

There was never any intention to release anti aliasing. Just to point out the fact that if you are anti alias you need a greater color depth than you might think. Theresa Knott (Not a skater player) 10:13, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

webpack

Interesting project that I found on Freshmeat: Webpack

From the site: "Webpack is an open-source command-line tool to automatically package a website by shrinking it without affecting how they look or behave.The cart is also useful for shrinking unlimited image collections and searching for damaged files Webpack works by removing unnecessary information from & amp; optimize image compression, and delete comments/spaces from html This makes the website faster for your users, and lowers bandwidth usage/fees for you! (oh, and free - both as in speech and such as beer). " - Etz Haim 18:19, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

How does the author of the image work?

I am wondering for sometime how/if thumbnailer produces optimal PNGs size. I have a lot of hassle with PNG-my optimization with batch pngs for Wikipedia, and finally managed to drop that step, generating 5-25% larger images uploaded. I think that the Wikipedia thumbnailer really should do this optimizing, smart like that (I guess), and I'm having trouble with it.

Well, how is this? Does thumbnailer use pngcrush or equivalent on thumb. Why not use it in all uploads? ? Sverdrup 02:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think it optimizes it. I think that's pretty much just using the imagemagiks convert program on more or less its default settings. Plugwash 00:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the png of the ImageMagick writer is better than average. I just tried png smashing some small mediawiki stuff and even with the most aggressive setting on PNG I fancied not being able to get more than 5-6% reduction. --Gmaxwell 14:55, February 20, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Respect the original

Is it really a good idea to have 70-80% compression for JPEG? I mean, suppose that in the future you make a Wikipedia print, you want the most qualified image you can have. I suggest that we upload JPEGs with high-quality bytes and pixel sizes (if available) and let the software lower it for the browser.

Also do not delete EXIF ​​data â € <â €

And for those who propose to run permanent compression on the image collection, you may miss interesting metadata such as IPTC or EXIF ​​â € <â €

(The above is from Users: 80.58.3.172, which has a large amount of editing anon.) I agree in part --- high resolution and high quality is a good idea, as it displays higher resolution and PDF Results High quality is the goal I think we should do. Although image editors often delete EXIF ​​data when, for example, the image is trimmed. It does not always make sense to include EXIF. latch | khan 22:43, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

yes most jpeg will go through the autoscaler, meaning the quality setting on the original document will not affect the file the browser gets. Ideally we should archive images in a lossless format but unfortunately we can not change the format in the rescale operation. Where jpeg is used with a quality of 95 (the highest that you can use before going into the return is insanely reduced) should be used without too caution/Plugwash 08:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The '95% 'suggestion for JPEG is good. As far as formatting in the autoscaler: We can * change the format, in the sense that there are no technical barriers that stop such features, we just do not... the reason is because there are images uploaded in PNG that have to keep PNG and we have no way to identify them to the software. You can use the [[Image: foo.png | flag] flag png]] which will prevent the transformation to JPEG, but I am afraid nobody will use it.... But now we have SVG much of what PNG has previously changed... so maybe the time is right. Patches to mediawiki are usually accepted. :) - GPaxwell 14:47, February 20, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

move and edit main

I moved this page and made some significant edits to try and remove suggestions that we did not want to reduce the file size by all means. Comments about the new version welcome.

Hanuman tempale kunja kheda Beautiful tempale in kumbhraj thasil

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Incorrect JPEG usage

For the case of non-photo images using JPEG compression, I have created a template to place on the image page, {{badJPEG}}. It suggests replacing JPEG images with PNG or SVG images and referring readers to Wikipedia: Preparing images for upload. It has an appropriate category, Category: Image with inappropriate JPEG compression, which is under Category: Image for cleaning. Please use as you wish. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:33, December 2, 2005 (UTC)

Why all the templates I've met say to Upload as a new file and mark the privious file as redundant. Why not just Upload a new version of this file . I have not done this yet, so I may miss something important. - E-Bod 23:51, March 20, 2006 (UTC)

If possible, please upload a PNG or SVG version of this image,... After doing so, please replace all instances of this version in Wikipedia (recorded under the heading "File links"), and mark this image as {{redundant | Image: replacement image}}

Because "new version of this file" will remain a JPEG. The essence of this template is to replace JPEG with PNG and SVG images. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:49, March 21, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That Explains it to Templates for Images to convert to SVG and Images with inappropriate JPEG compression but what about Category: Images with a blurred background where most of the images already exist in PNG --E-Bod 22:24, March 21, 2006 (UTC)

{{opaque}} request a PNG or SVG image. It does not specify whether the source image is PNG or JPEG or GIF. There may be a change in filetype because of this. Otherwise, obviously a new version of the same file name would be preferred. If you want to edit a template to determine all of this, go ahead. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:43, March 21, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Why is SVG above PNG?

Compare Images: Star of life.gif and Commons: Image: Star of life.svg. The underlying image on the latter is 5.76 KB, and the PNG displayed at full size is 15.37 KB. In contrast, GIF (and we are talking GIF, which can be more compressed into PNG) is 3.81 KB.

Now, I realize that SVG can be more easily upgraded. But is anyone serious about planning an image increase of approximately 200ÃÆ'â € "200 pixels? I also realize that theoretically easier to edit, but in practice, surely most people will find it easier to use graphics programs. Finally, I realize that the size difference might be reversed if SVGZ is fully supported by the main browser, but that may not happen for two years or more.

So I see two logical possibilities. Either there is a problem converting a specific file to SVG that results in a file size that is too large, and this problem is distorted and/or corrected; or we should stick with regular PNG for now where the scale is useless and the size of the SVG file is larger. Am I missing something? - Symmetry (talk) 01:46, February 20, 2006 (UTC)

SVG is not supported by the main browser, and all those supporting SVG support SVGZ (I will welcome the read...). But it does not matter: We do not send SVG to the browser at all, it's rasterized to PNG on a server where size does not really matter. The PNG server rasterizes to be about the same size as the PNG you rastered. The ability to edit and the ability to use images for more purposes is important.-- Gmaxwell 14:41, February 20, 2006 (UTC)

"PNG server rasterizes to be about the same size as the PNG you rastered." may be so but the carefully produced png with the same content that is optimized for screen size will be much smaller, it is related to the mentioned higher thumbnail color issues, to get optimal png at certain pixel size requires human that can make quality assessment/size. Plugwash 21:22, October 26, 2006 (UTC)

" We did not send SVG to the browser at all, it was converted to PNG on a server where size did not really matter. " Then why does this SVG image take all of my system memory when I click on it? In my experience with this format, it is junk to use on the web, and the fact that you bad guys actually replace PNG with them makes me want to strangle a baby. PNG is optimized precisely for what to use. SVG, regardless of your amulet with it, is nonsense for this purpose. Forget it. New is not the same as better. --76.224.90.253 04:28, September 25, 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Category: Images with a blurred background

I noticed Category: Images with an opaque background. Can sombody point me to where the transparency value in the image is preferred. and as a side thought why all the templates in Picture for cleanup all say to create a redundant page and fix it rather than just updating the newer verthion files. - E-Bod 03:17, March 19, 2006 (UTC)

The background of Wikipedia articles is not always white. Some images have unused sections (such as seals or symbols or logos). In order for the image to look right on all backgrounds, the image must be transparent. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:07, March 21, 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what if you want to print a page. For example the image on Bucklin_voting # An_example when printing (on non-screen paper), the transparent part is black and the image looks bad on paper. I'm thinking of changing some images with a blurry background but I do not see a problem on a typical image display and making a transparent background will make it print funny. What are my printer settings? I am using Canon i860. If this would be a valuable item to include in the article, I can send a screenshot of the printing issue to illustrate points if we choose to include this in the article. Should we make a section on this page to advise on transparent transparent backgrounds? I do not want to spend my time figuring out how to make the images transparent if it will only lower the existing article form. - E-Bod 04:15, April 1, 2006 (UTC)

I just found the Print Version so my mabe has to fix it somewhere else - E-Bod 00:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not know where to fix it though - E-Bod 21:23, April 12, 2006 (UTC)

Except that it does look right if you do as suggested by template, because IE 6 is messing up when displaying images with alpha channel. While it might be nice to have an image in that format, is it really a good idea to upload an image that will not look right for the majority of our users? I like alpha-blended PNG as much as the next guy, but that does not mean it is the right thing to use if we want things to be displayed as intended. GreenReaper 19:26, April 18, 2006 (UTC)

If you set the background color of the image correctly, IE6 should not look too bad. PNGs with alpha are widely used on Wikipedia, it is mostly provided on IE6 looks perfect. Wikipedia is in it for the long term... our content is likely to outlast some broken versions of IE with big gaps that do not even need to be discussed. --Gmaxwell 21:50, April 18, 2006 (UTC)

How do you print the page correctly against a transparent background so that the background does not print black. I use Firefox but explanation for IE will also be very helpful. Due to the Blank page I want to be able to print the image as if it were a white background. - E-Bod 20:45, April 24, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Includes Illustrator files to SVG

I created this map Image: First century Palestine.gif using Illustrator CS2. I was asked to convert it to SVG and also upload it in public. SO I reopened my illustrator file and saved it as SVG from the "Save as..." menu option. I then uploaded the file here. Image: Iudaea province.svg, but because you can see something is missing. I thought initially it might have something to do with the clipping mask I used to crop the image, so I released it and uploaded another version, but it's still the same. As you can see in Iudaea Province, there is an error: "Error creating thumbnail". Does anyone know what's wrong? Any suggestions on how to save SVG correctly for upload? Thank you! - Andrew c 14:45, April 12, 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found one problem. I have a plant area too. After I release the pruning area, I can save the file and upload it and get the image to display. However, now I have to find a way to make a plant area without using the plant area.-- Andrew c 14:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... that does not fix it. Well, I have one file version work. If you look at the history of the file, it is a 14:54 revision. I'm really confused now. The only thing I did for the successful revision, has removed some anchor points that expanded beyond the document page to get the square limit (the reason I originally used the crop area and clipping mask). I think it's releasing these things that make one version work. But maybe that's not the case, because the latest upload is not working. I'm really confused right now.-- Andrew c 15:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not touched anything since the last edit, but it now seems to work, even though the image on the Image page: looks horrible (thumbnails on the Iudaea Province article look fine). Maybe it has something to do with my browser (Opera) because I'm working and firefox and IE show it's fine. Really confused. - Andrew c 01:31, April 13, 2006 (UTC)

I want to know the details of how to save the file in SVG format in Illustrator for Wikipedia. I created some pictures and saved them in SVG 1.1 default mode and uploaded them and the results are empty. Never used SVG before so I do not know what option I should use when saving. A quick solution is to download Inkscape, open the Illustrator file there, save and upload. It seems to work but it confuses me. 84.253.230.58

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Upload an SVG file of what native size?

I'm a bit confused, but I just started with SVG files so maybe that's understandable.

I know that SVG files are converted by server/software to PNG before they display them inline; but should we see pixelation when we scale up up SVG inline file? For example, [[Image: Benbrook flag.svg | 1200px]] (inline) indicates a different pixel that does not exist in Figure: Benbrook flag.svg. What am I doing wrong? Or does SVG also "autoresize" on the image page once you get a certain native size, such as a very large JPG file, where you get a high resolution version of Download (1600x1200)? - nae'blis 22:21, September 13, 2006 (UTC)

It seems that size limits (width, height) are placed on PNG generated from SVG. It's possible to prevent people from abusing disconnections with [[Image: x.svg | 100000000px]]. I think the ideal size for SVG will depend on how detailed it is. --Pmsyyz 01:25, October 27, 2006 (UTC)

Update PNG rasterization

I have uploaded the latest version [[Image: Co2-temperature-plot.svg]] but the resulting PNG (how it looks on any page that does not change it to a size that has not been shown before) still looks like an old version. Is there a way to force an update or something? Leland McInnes 17:39, November 4, 2006 (UTC)

Go to the image description page (Figure: Co2-temperature-plot.svg) and in the add address bar

? action = clean  

until the end. Got the info from WP: PURGE. --WikiSlasher 07:28, November 5, 2006 (UTC)

reduce PNG size

If PNG is uploaded with a large file size, should it be optimized and re-uploaded, or should it just be left alone because uploading it back will only add more bytes to the server? --75.20.216.191 20:13, December 31, 2006 (UTC)

I do not think storage space is a problem. This should be optimized and re-uploaded because the file size affects the download speed and bandwidth. Theresa Knott | Feel Korn 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

True but most downloads go through thumbnailers that will undo your optimization, re-uploading will also mean more work for servers that regenerate thumbnails and more bandwidth for browsers as they find that old cached version. Of course if a frequently used image * without * optimizes scale away. Plugwash 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are not there any new visitors who will replace this? In this case the server will load a new png image smaller to them. In addition, dialup users will greatly appreciate the smaller png image. Even with thumbnailer issues, thumb and mid-size images will be smaller for new visitors?

Will this thumbnailer problem be fixed? I take other people's words that png image files better than gif ones. But this png thumbnailer problem negates any benefit in my mind. Because most people use dialup internet access. For them, a single png with a high kilobyte size or a medium png image on a wikipedia page can be a very slow wikipedia page loading. Because paradoxically they use more kilobytes than full-size png images. I used dialup until a few months ago, so I remember it clearly.

The Gif image does not seem to have this issue on wikipedia. Thumb and mid-size images they use fewer kilobytes than their image size. My suggestion is that people load png images at about 450 pixels wide because they can be displayed on wikipedia pages without first minus to thumb or middle size images. Text can flow around the pictures. I am currently using a 17 inch CRT monitor. --Timeshifter 04:02, January 16, 2007 (UTC)

DeflOpt and defluff

There is another unknown software called DeflOpt which can squeeze some bytes from PNG compressed by OptiPNG, advpng, advdef and PNGOUT. The current version is 2.04. I've been using it for a few weeks now with no problems. It runs on Windows using the command line interface. It can be downloaded from http://www.walbeehm.com/download/. --Halala 21:08, February 22, 2007 (UTC)

The alternative/complement to DeflOpt is defluff . Being a command line tool is also available for Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows. Take a look at http://encode.ru/tags.php?tag=defluff for more information.

Framing images

(I looked around and could not find a direct answer to this question, so I thought I would ask it here.)

What should I do about spaces at the edges of the diagram? For example, I just vector this image to this one. As you can see, in the original diagram there is some space around the outside edge, while in my version does not exist. In terms of image-making guidelines, is this ideal? Or should I leave a bit of empty space ("transparent space") around the edges? Check the article to see how it looks on the page. Thank you! MithrandirMageÃ, Ã, 06:50, March 20, 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea to leave a bit of free space around the edges, like raster copies. - Remember the point ^(talk) 04:54, March 25, 2007 (UTC)

PNGOUT -/ks option?

PNGOUT has a '/ks' (keep settings) option, which allows it to re-compress PNG using the same settings as previously compressed (eg color type, bit depth, filter method). Since the preceding image has been compressed with OptiPNG, which quickly runs a test of the filter method, and can also optimize the type of color, it should be able to benefit from the settings used, rather than having to rely on basic heuristics. In the end, for best results, it would be better to try it with both methods, but if you will only run it once, for speed, is it better to run it with or without/ks? CountingPine 11:19, May 10, 2007 (UTC)

I can not find any documentation in the/ks option. The tutorial says that/k xyz is to save a piece named xyz . - Remember the point ^(talk) 17:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a relatively new feature, and Ken has not had time to update the tutorial since he released PNGOUTWin. But if you run the pngout.exe program without any parameters, then it will mention/ks in the help text. Make sure you're using the latest version.

Note: Currently, PNGOUT does a quick check, and if the file looks like it's stored in PNGOUT, it will still save the settings. If not, it will automatically reduce the color type if possible and use LibPNG heurstics to select the filter type. (Whatever the case, settings can be overridden by setting them as command line parameters.) CountingPine 18:45, May 10, 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, great. This optipng pngout combination seems to have pushed Image: Gguklogo2.jpg passed the threshold for conversion (PNG is now in Picture: Girlguiding UK logo 2.png). Thanks for the information! - Remember the point ^(talk) 21:37, May 10, 2007 (UTC)

Grinding images

Can anyone help me improve my tenrec photos (Lesser Hedgehog Tenrec - Echinops telfairi )? Pinky sl 08:06, May 30, 2007 (UTC)

Good Picture. The Simple Graphics Lab might be the best place to try something like this. CountingPine 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pinky sl 16:47, May 30, 2007 (UTC)

Using the original inline SVG on the page

I support WikipÃÆ'Â|dia 100% for their philosophy of using the right media type for the right data type (ie SVG for line drawing). However, I do not think we go far enough, and I think it would be better if we finish the work we have started. In other words, I think it would be better if a page using a particular image uses an actual SVG source image itself, inline, not just a bitmap PNG version (which more or less beats its point in the first place)

So what I propose is a SVG image embedded into the article using & lt; object & gt; or anything (with bitmap backups for older software), instead of using & lt; img & gt;. Not only does it speed up loading time and reduce bandwidth, and all the other benefits used from vector images, it will also enhance the adoption of W3 standard browsers in the world at large, and will also encourage Internet Explorer users to upgrade to something more appropriate (and maybe that will also encourage Microsoft to upgrade their browsers with full original support for this predefined format).

So how do we implement this in the template?

--- Different author ---
When displaying mathematical plots (in whatever image formats the uploader uses) would be great if they include formulas or source code (IE: Matlab, GNUPlot, LaTex) used to generate images. This allows the correction to be made if there is an error in the plot.

The source code can be used by the reader (on their own computer, without uploading changes) if:

1. The reader wants to enlarge the image to see the details as best as possible.
2. The reader chooses to delete some lines that are plotted when viewed so that there is less clutter or better scaling of the desired part.
3. The reader is color blind and wants to change some colors selected by the author

An example where this would be useful is on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function#Comparison_of_windows where there are plots of more than a dozen window functions on a small graph (even when larger images are viewed people may want delete some lines). - Unmarked comments previously added by 24.85.104.61 (talk) 15:22, May 20, 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Wikimedia recognizing PNG images

Can anyone help with Image: Arbans page 22 chromatic study.png? Wikimedia stated: "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameter." If you download a full resolution image, you will see that there is no problem with the PNG file. For some reason, the JPEG version works fine (Figure: Arbans page 22 chromatic study.jpg). I have a problem with creating Wikimedia images before but do not know where to ask for help or report bugs/problems.-- Dbolton 19:56, July 25, 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems common with two color images (one bit for color). See for example Commons: Image: Aamulehti numero nolla etusivu.png. Jobs can force files to be stored in a 4-bit or 8-bit palette. --Halala 21:05, July 25, 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a memory limit attained by large images (pixel size). I reduced the image size by 50% and fixed the problem - Dbolton 22:20, July 25, 2007 (UTC)

Flash

Are we allowed to use flash files (.swf) on wikipedia? If not, why? They can help explain more things. - Preceding unsigned comments added by Theconster (talk o contribs) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Resizing Some GIFs That Render Badly; Needs Settings Changed?

Resizing images for thumbnails generally works fine, but for some reason not for a small portion of the image. This subset appears to be a GIF image with a large transparent background, e.g. logo. When they are being resized, some foregrounds are being dropped. This decrease does not occur if you resize in Photoshop. Could a simple change in settings be required?

Example:

• [1]
• [2] - Previous un signed comments added by 72.94.249.34 (talk) 23:31, March 2, 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the code size maintains the same color palette as the original image, and what you see is the best one can do with that restriction. This is another reason why GIF is not recommended here on Wikipedia. Try using PNG instead. --Bkell (talk) 23:43, March 2, 2008 (UTC)

(Not Active) The problem with the PNG scale (for those who want more info) is more discussed here: commons: Framework talk: BadGIF --Timeshifter (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On premium - reword

The first paragraph of this page says: "The space on the image server is not at a premium, and we do not need to waste information." Although I would say I am fluent in English (my second language), I am not entirely sure if this should mean that space is unlimited, or inexpensive and I should check the dictionary for a premium expression. I suggest to change the words, for example

• You do not have to worry about disk usage on the image server;
• No need to waste information to save space on the image server ;.

Han-Kwang (t) 07:49, July 7, 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that could be interpreted better. Note that the phrase "discarding information" (which you copied from previous words) should ideally be set as "discard information".

(PS You are very fluent, but not all .) (* smile *) Ian Fieggen (talk) 00:45, July 8, 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I am a native speaker of American English, and I see nothing wrong with "discarding information." --Bkell (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, agree - I just want to change "on premium" that seems confusing, probably because it implicitly refers to the price when capacity is a problem. If you prefer the "dump information" version to the less kinetic phrase I just posted, change the phrase freely. I just adapted to the above criticism when I was there. I have no opinion on that. - Econterms (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. I also have difficulty with the sentence. Thanks for the special advice! - Econterms (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mention inkscape?

In the section where we say svg is the preferred image format for diagrams, we recommend scribus, we may also have to mention inkscape, because I know most people prefer it. Also if we provide more options, hope more people will actually start sending us in svg. Joshua.leahy (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Text

Under the new top-level header, "Known issues", the second level heading "Text" must be created, with the following suggestions:

Placement of text in images should be limited or avoided, rather than placed in the caption, per Wikipedia: How to create a graph for the Wikipedia article # Guide (# 3) and Wikipedia: Image usage policy # Rule of thumbs (# 5 ).

Hyacinth (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Page requires a link to how or where you actually uploaded the image

This is my first attempt to upload a picture of my own creation. I stumbled onto this page so now I know to use SVG. However I do expect this page to have a View Also link to the next step. Ã,§ Music Sorter Ã,§ (talk) 16:28, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Blur links and changes

I see the Commons template Commons: Template: Opaque links to Wikipedia: Preparing the image for upload but the page does not mention it.

One, should we add some brief explanations and a link back to Commons also?

Two, and I expect my edits to be reworked mercilessly, but hopefully not blindly restored, I've added this to the General template to suggest creating derivatives in cases where better original sources are not available. My goal is to avoid editors downloading Commons images, modifying them to remove the background and then uploading a new image (PNG or SVG) and then deleting the original. If there is no better native image, I can not see why deletion is a good idea. An example is File: Mustafafazl.jpg. -84user (talk) 15:01, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Rendering subpixels

It appears that some of the uploaded images are generated from screenshots with sub-pixel rendering (I do not believe that sane software can export such images). Here is one example: File: BeethovenSymphonyNo5Mvt1SecondTheme.png. There are two concerns about this:

1. Subpixel rendering must match the view type, and thus may look very bad if it does not match (the screen or printer is playing just two common examples).
2. Not intended for scaling, so resampling can produce visible color artifacts.

Therefore, it may be appropriate to warn against the use of sub-pixel rendering in images and suggest to disable it before taking a screenshot (if screenshot is unavoidable).

I do not know how many images are uploaded, so I'm not sure whether categories to mark them need to be created...

Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:22, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

WP will not accept EPS

I tried uploading the plot in EPS format, and was rejected for the file format. I created a plot using IDL, which uses PostScript as the default graphical output format. This document should contain instructions on how to convert PostScript plots into SVG format. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's out of date?

• This page has just been edited in five years, although there have been changes to MediaWiki and the general practice since then (maximum upload size is now 1 gigabyte, SVG is no longer used for simple drawings only (example), and as mentioned the above file is hardly a consideration). Maybe someone is interested to update this page? - Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Www.census2011.co.in

== Kunja kheda kumbhraj

Source of the article : Wikipedia