Please consider raising the image resolution & file size limits

[Novaenia]

There's been a large influx of users, mostly artists, coming from Twitter due to recent crappy changes to their terms of service (Using art to train AI slop even without consent)

Unfortunately, it seems like the limits for images on Bluesky are even worse than Twitter's.

Twitter: The max dimensions are 4096x4096, images larger get resized. Uploaded PNGs are converted to a JPG with subpar quality but for artists there's actually some wiggle room for PNGs, and JPGs are preserved as-is if they meet certain criteria (less than 4096x4096 and 5 MB) This means uploading your own 100% quality JPG is the best choice on Twitter if using a PNG would get it compressed by their servers. There's a thread going into detail here.

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've seen:
On Bluesky the maximum dimensions are 2000x2000 and the max file size is 1MB. The server rejects images above 1 MB, so the client compresses the image to a JPG starting at 100% quality, dropping the quality level by 10% until the result is below the size limit.

I think these limits are way too low and should be raised to at least match Twitter's.

[sroby]

Seconding this. If BlueSky really wants to convince artists to move over from Twitter, it will need picture quality limits that are at the very least on par with Twitter's, and preferably even better.

[Tamschi]

bluesky-social/social-app#6137 should help a lot once merged.
Most JPEGs I see on Twitter are far below 1MB and this PR aims for the best quality within that limit.

Still would be nice to have a bit more room for higher-detail images, though.