- Current limitation: One cannot upload animated GIF images with over 50 million pixels. This makes it impossible to upload HD animated images that have more than a few frames. E.g., if a gif has a resolution of 2373×1889 (~half a 4k monitor), only 11 frames will be allowed.
- Feature request: Allow higher-resolution GIF images.
- Motivation: Some people use 4k monitors and high-resolution phones nowadays. Note that a high-resolution GIF images can still have a small size and can still be readable (example). Also it makes no sense to force animated GIF images to be of much lower resolution than still images. Lastly, note that even many GIFs that are not high resolution are also above the 50-million-pixel limit (this example has ~100 million pixels).
asked May 10 at 21:08
-
7But on what rare occasion would you need an animated gif of your entire screen?– JoachimCommented May 10 at 22:04
-
1@Joachim E.g. when I need to show 2 buttons that are in opposite sides.– Franck DernoncourtCommented May 10 at 22:06
-
Record, crop to both contexts, save separately with the same settings, and they should play synchronized :)– JoachimCommented May 10 at 22:11
-
6@Joachim Thanks, I prefer to show the entire UI and I value my time.– Franck DernoncourtCommented May 10 at 22:16
-
3Prior to making this request, it would be better to ask what the actual limitation is. Is it really that there's a maximum resolution? Is there something else that's preventing your upload? If there is a maximum resolution for GIFs, does it apply to the other formats? If that specific limitation doesn't apply to other formats do the other formats have a different resolution maximum, other than the data size maximum? The minimum that's needed is for the limits to be known and clearly communicated to users, so users aren't forced to guess as to why their attempt to upload something fails.– MakyenCommented May 11 at 2:32
-
2@Makyen "Is it really that there's a maximum resolution?" Yes: meta.stackexchange.com/a/399764/178179 "The image in question is a large animated gif - 2373×1889 pixels with 114 frames. An image with these properties is not going to work."– Franck DernoncourtCommented May 11 at 2:41
-
@Makyen I updated the question with the limitation stated by SE.– Franck DernoncourtCommented Jun 3 at 6:17
-
1I think the angle taken in this question was a poor one; you don't need a high-res monitor to run into this limit. Simple, reasonably-dimensioned gif demos of bugs are currently blocked by this restriction, which is pretty annoying.– zcoop98Commented Jul 15 at 15:20
-
@zcoop98 thanks, I had added "note that even many GIFs that are not high resolution are also above the 50-million-pixel limit (this example has ~100 million pixels)." but I'll rephrase it more.– Franck DernoncourtCommented Jul 15 at 19:42
-
1@zcoop98 let's start with What's the rationale behind placing a limit on uploaded gifs in terms of pixels? (instead of bytes or frame dimensions).– Franck DernoncourtCommented Jul 15 at 19:49
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
With 21 downvotes and 9 upvotes so far, the community consensus is clearly rejecting that feature request. Arguments from the comment sections:
But on what rare occasion would you need an animated gif of your entire screen? Record, crop to both contexts, save separately with the same settings, and they should play synchronized :) Joachim
-
Delete and down votes: please tell me how to improve the answer. Commented Jul 8 at 22:00
-
I'll vote in the VLQ review to keep this answer, but the vote tally should be edited out IMO as it'll get stale and shouldn't be maintained. Keeping a list of pros/cons as CW does make sense. Commented Jul 9 at 0:58
-
@bad_coder That's a disservice to the site, IMO. The quote of a comment is, at best, a very poor work-around, but isn't really an answer, and not really a viable workaround, as synchronization isn't guaranteed (It seems mostly meant as a joke to me). This is an answer that was placed by the OP in order to try to prevent the question from being deleted by the Roomba, which would have been the better thing to happen, but "save my precious question". In addition, this "answer" is, effectively, just a repost of the earlier one by the OP that was deleted by a mod as NAA.– MakyenCommented Jul 15 at 21:38
-
Overall, it would have been better to leave this question deleted and allow someone else, in a few/several months, whenever it came up again as an issue, to post a new feature request which didn't start from a version that people respond negatively to. Particularly better than trying to manipulate the system into artificially keeping a poorly received feature request that, because of that poor reception, will never be implemented. Because that's the effect of your actions and the actions of the OP, my assumption is that neither of you desire for this feature request to ever be implemented.– MakyenCommented Jul 15 at 21:38
-
@Makyen The quote is a valid answer, I was following the feedback "take the comments and make them into answer" on the deleted answer. You are trying to manipulate the system by removing feature requests and reposting them hoping it'll get approved at some point; we should instead keep track of which feature requests were disapproved by the community. Commented Jul 15 at 21:49
-
2@Makyen I trust you to be someone who knows what good faith (or assuming good intentions as it was spelled in the CoC...) means. I do not believe nor agree with all the negative intentions you're attributing to what I see as just another regular action by me or the OP. Commented Jul 15 at 23:28
-
@FranckDernoncourt No, you, along with others, have already manipulated the system, which had already deleted this question. You have continued to manipulate the system in order to preserve this question from being deleted by the system again by posted A) first a non-answer, then B) a useless answer here that copied a joking reply from a comment, that will, at best, work for some people viewing the page some of the time. Both of these posts were with, IMO, the direct intent of preventing the system from deleting the question again.– MakyenCommented Jul 16 at 1:10
-
What's sad is that, supposedly, Franck actually wants this feature request to happen, but has taken actions to, effectively, ensure that it never will.– MakyenCommented Jul 16 at 1:12
-
@bad_coder I did not mean to include you within Franck's intent. I'm sorry I gave that impression. I understand that you were acting as you saw fit, even though I disagree with your evaluation of this answer wrt. not being very low quality (and, probably, upvoting, which I really don't understand, as it's, IMO, certainly not worth an upvote). My statements were to give you more of the complete picture of what had already happened. My statements were definitely not intended to indicate I felt you were acting in bad faith. Again, I'm sorry that they gave you that impression.– MakyenCommented Jul 16 at 1:41
-
2@Makyen "manipulate" from the latin "manu" (hand) + "pleō" (full) - a handful (gotta love romance language etymology). Besides its plain meaning of handling something the verb can also have a negative semantic of self-serving with deceit, to attain ends using unethical means. I see validity in the FR; if voters got it wrong that's democracy; if devs disregard a good FR it's their fault. Lets take manipulate and inflect towards handfull, what is a handful are endless arguments about online etiquette - because ethics has long been lost in this place. Commented Jul 16 at 2:38