@ryo @djsumdog Image sizes really are nuts. Now it's normal for images to be 5 ~ 20 MB. Absurd. I don't remember the exactly size, but I downloaded an image that was in the triple digits. I think it was 300 ~ 500 MB. Fucking insane. Meanwhile, I look at them on my 900p monitor.

Though I don't think it's all resolution, I think people just don't believe in compression anymore, and are too lazy to do it. And artists in particular, I think to them it's more marketable for their images to be gigantic, even if it's completely unnecessary and doesn't contain enough detail to actually need that. I see a lot of flat images with no texture that are still gigantic. Why? What is the point?

Also, for a website's UI, I think everything should be done with images. But the images should be small. If you use images that are the size that they were back in the 2000s, it's not a problem at all. You can even use plenty of small GIFs and it's fine now.