UHQ, HQ, MQ, LQ and blah blah blah

I'm getting pretty tired of regular HQ's getting called UHQ, MQ's getting called HQ and etc. I think we need to classify the different acronyms, do any of you guys agree?
Perhaps I'm just an angry nerd...but plox?

Like this post http://forum.phun.org/showpost.php?p=2573514&postcount=27
They're labeled as UHQ (no offense Marky), but they're only like 2500x3750px

you see...this is what I classify as a proper UHQ

4800x6041px




My point is, I think UHQ should be saved for the extraordinary, not the mediocre-ish.

The classifications could look something like this:
LQ = anything up to 420x300px
MQ = 420x300px to 1400x1900px
HQ = 1400x1900px to 3500x5000px
UHQ = 3500x5000px and ABOVE

 

None taken Mel! I will label them as "HQ" or "Not HQ". If I click on a thumb and the pic is twice as big as my monitor to me that is UHQ but everybody has different opinions!

 

Good point mel, i had a brief discussion about this with cayne about what would constitute such tags and that him and I both don't even know.

 

i'm probably guilty too.
i don't know what constitutes hq or even lq.
this will help. cheers angry nerd!!

 

Too many pics get an HQ tag when they are large pictures but low resolution/quality also.

 

That's why I don't tag my threads with HQ and UHQ. I only tag 'em when they're non-HQ for sure, to avoid controversy.

 

Yeah some set standards would be great

 

i think the two celeb mods should be best to address such issue. so salts and kieks this is all up to you guys.

 

and yes, that is me passing the buck.

 

Nicely played azz

 

Good that should make mel sleep at nights cause it had him frustrated

 

mel
thats a huge fucking photo, i can look in her pours and see what she ate for lunch.

 

Hmm, like Marky said, it's hard to tell what people describe as UHQ. If the image is twice as big as my 22" monitor, I'd say it's UHQ.

I think we already got enough "rules" which control the titles of our threads, esp. in the celebrity forum. And I think nobody will take offense, when he clicks on a thread that reads UHQ and the images are "just" 2500x2500

Of course people should label their threads the right way, but that mostly counts for the LQ/MQ images.

 

Cayne said it best, and that's me passing the buck as well

 

what if i only got a 19" monitor? I can't see what you see. maybe you should get me one the same size so we can be on the same page.

kieks you pussy! tell cayne what to do!

 

some people have different connections and will classify their pictures differently. like me, I have a shitty connection and sometimes go on dial up, so when I'm on that fucker anything over 140KB is friggin HQ to me!

but hey, as some people said there are enough things to worry aboot in the titles so one more classification may be moo.

 

my :2cent: - quite often a small pic has more quality than a large one...

 

Whay not say

Small - Smaller images
MQ - Largest side up to 1500
HQ - 1500 to 3500
UHQ - 3500+

And if a set is really big but bad quality then it just put low res inside the post.

But really, if i like a girls posts it wouldn't bother me to have misclassified sizes in the title.

 

Haha i agree 100%