RyuZU said:
why the post#228371 was deleted? it had been approved
There are some really obvious......errors/mistakes/whateveryouwannacallit in the background. The black line across the top and the way it looks as if parts were poorly erased (especially around the rope). There's also a lot of aliasing around the character and her bag, causing it to look like an uneven copy/paste job (not saying it is, but I don't know). You can even see there's a part in the back of her hair where her hair just suddenly stops part way up.
ok, I just asked because has nothing written on the "Reason" like "not approved for 3+ days", "Excessive JPEG artifacts"
RyuZU said:
ok, I just asked because has nothing written on the "Reason" like "not approved for 3+ days", "Excessive JPEG artifacts"
Yeah, I'm admittedly pretty bad at coming up with good wording for that stuff. Sorry. ^_^
Apologies, I assume it might not be a right form but I have a question in regards to deletion and assumed it might be the right thread:

I'm a freelance eastern-style artist and after long run of being watcher I've decided to create an account and post some wallpapers connected with my ongoing project concerning Ghost in the Shell fanfic artbook (currently with blessing from Ghost in the Shell: First Assault game staff and community). All of then however got deleted within a minutes and... no reason whatsoever was stated.

I would be ok if their theme is not right or they do not live up to standards of the site (sad but ok) but currently I'm just deeply confused.

Thank You for your reply in advance.

EDIT: Apologies: I just re-read deletion reasons on the later appearing/delayed info. Apparently subpar quality. I still would however love to hear the main reasons to it. Call it curiosity :P
Well I've seen closed forums being way more active.

Sadly I see we won't probably find common ground mainly since no ground is being given. I would kindly request account deletion if possible. I try to avoid sour memories.

PS: Why the heck whole cyber_punk section is null?! Unacceptable XD !
We can't delete accounts, only ban people.
post #231612 is primarily a scenic view of the cityscape - the characters are secondary. Yes there are some aliasing effects on the character arm outlines, but the characters are not the focus of the image, it is the cityscape that dominates the view. When the image if viewed full screen, as a whole, at a normal viewing distance as you would if viewing the image as a wallpaper, the localized aliasing effects on the character outlines are a tiny portion of the image and don't draw the viewer's attention.
It was deleted for artifacts, not aliasing. The artifacts are most visible on the characters, but they are all throughout the image and in excess of what we allow here.
I can get post #231612 fixed if you want.
Dummy said:
I can get post #231612 fixed if you want.
It is not clear to me what artifacts are throughout the image. The level of detail throughout the cityscape is so very high that the effects spacial quantization are present (insufficient pixels for the level of detail) given that the image is only ~1900 x 1200. If you enlarge the image, this is clear, but the image should be viewed at its native resolution, at that level, the artifacts are lost in the high detail of the image and are not obtrusive (at least to my eye). Even the clouds are clean with little blocking compared to many other posts.

If your monitor exceeds the native resolution of any image, and you enlarge the image to fit, sure you Should expect to see artifacts, especially if the detail is high, but that is not a fair evaluation.

Sure, the image could be low pass filtered but then all that nice detail I find appealing in the image gets turned into haze, which, imo I find unappealing. Well, I have a copy for myself :)
Kiho said:
If your monitor exceeds the native resolution of any image, and you enlarge the image to fit, sure you Should expect to see artifacts, especially if the detail is high, but that is not a fair evaluation.
I never zoom in on images. I'm just viewing it at it's native resolution on a 27" 1920x1080 monitor. The size of my monitor may help me see artifacts, but I have very good eyes too.

Dummy said:
I can get post #231612 fixed if you want.
Running it through waifu2x on noise level 1 was enough to clean it up. I'm not sure if you were planning to do more than that, but you should at least fix the error in the top right corner.
We need to revive post #230747, or Ima upload a waifu2x version. It's too cute.
The grain will probably make the results look terrible.
Why was post #232004 not approved? I realize I can't find a source for it but I thought it was good quality. Did I miss something?
traz64 said:
Why was post #232004 not approved? I realize I can't find a source for it but I thought it was good quality. Did I miss something?
The resolution already tells me it's from one of those cheasy resize wallpaper websites……
To me it lacked detail. I get the focus is supposed to be on the environment, but when the characters have such little presence it kinda defeats the purpose.
otaku_emmy said:
To me it lacked detail. I get the focus is supposed to be on the environment, but when the characters have such little presence it kinda defeats the purpose.
Purpose of ur opinion? Ughhh omgerd Emiliaa XD
mattiasc02 said:
Purpose of ur opinion? Ughhh omgerd Emiliaa XD
Because he asked.

If you have a wallpaper from a specific anime, but you can't even tell what it's from or who it's supposed to be without the tags, then it's not a very good image. I'm no artist, that's just my two cents.
otaku_emmy said:
Because he asked.

If you have a wallpaper from a specific anime, but you can't even tell what it's from or who it's supposed to be without the tags, then it's not a very good image. I'm no artist, that's just my two cents.
Yes sir.
otaku_emmy said:
If you have a wallpaper from a specific anime, but you can't even tell what it's from or who it's supposed to be without the tags, then it's not a very good image. I'm no artist, that's just my two cents.
I personally disagree, but I'm a big fan of /w/'s powerlevel threads. That's actually where I got the image from.
mattiasc02 said:
Wait why was post #230948 deleted?
Because no mod liked it enough to approve it -

Personally, I did not approve it because the background, which is a large proportion of the image was blurred. I find such images are hard to look at for an extended period of time and so make poor wallpapers.
Kiho said:
Because no mod liked it enough to approve it -

Personally, I did not approve it because the background, which is a large proportion of the image was blurred. I find such images are hard to look at for an extended period of time and so make poor wallpapers.
ok.
What was wrong with post #232830? Jpeg artifacts?

Edit: Why was post #233187 deleted as, 'no'? Emmy...
Because Luna just uploaded a "fixed" version which might not be approved either. I get kinda miffed when you guys keep uploading the same thing once it's been deleted. That's not how this works. You can't keep uploading something that was deleted in the hopes that we'll forget we deleted it or that we'll all change our minds suddenly.
otaku_emmy said:
Because Luna just uploaded a "fixed" version which might not be approved either. I get kinda miffed when you guys keep uploading the same thing once it's been deleted. That's not how this works. You can't keep uploading something that was deleted in the hopes that we'll forget we deleted it or that we'll all change our minds suddenly.
You haven't answered my question. Was it the Jpeg artifacts?
There, you got your way. But if something's deleted just let it go next time.

I just thought the image didn't look good overall. It was nothing specific.
otaku_emmy said:
There, you got your way. But if something's deleted just let it go next time.
Ok then.

Yay
... The first one (which no one approved) looks better than the two that were uploaded today...

Post #232830 doesn't have any artifacts or the texture hides them well. The texture isn't a problem in my opinion.

Post #233187 has much of the texture filtered out which would normally be fine. But in some areas the filtering is uneven, making the areas with clearer texture look like artifacts.

Post #233183 just looks blurred which doesn't help at all.

-------

The reasons I didn't approve it are:
  • The rough linework and coloring. (Especially on the hands!)
  • The aliasing in the hair at the bottom
  • The anatomy looks slightly flawed. I can't really tell what it is, but I have some guesses.
It just doesn't look very good to me. If someone wants to approve the original (which was deleted as unapproved for 3+ days), go ahead. But the others should be deleted.