Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

SIG kb size

31 replies to this topic
Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#1

Posted 17 September 2009 - 09:21 PM Edited by docrikowski, 17 September 2009 - 09:25 PM.

Just a suggestion.
Could the default sig size limit (80 kb) be increased to 100kb?
Sometimes I design sigs that fit in 500x150 but fail to fit in the 80kb limit.
I.e. mine had to be scaled to 435xsomething to fit in the 80kb limit. 435 is small confused.gif
(Just ignore my suggestion in case that 100kb would cause any tech issue to the boards.) smile.gif icon14.gif

EDIT: sorry just saw another topic about it... My mistake. Anyway 20kb more would be enough colgate.gif

Ats.
  • Ats.

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009
  • None

#2

Posted 17 September 2009 - 09:28 PM

Yea, admins raise the sig size limit a lil bit. Nobody's using 56k net anymore. This have been asked so many times. smile.gif

Mista.
  • Mista.

    m'I stA

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2009

#3

Posted 18 September 2009 - 07:51 AM

QUOTE (Ats. @ Sep 18 2009, 00:28)
Yea, admins raise the sig size limit a lil bit. Nobody's using 56k net anymore. This have been asked so many times. smile.gif

And some Avatars are like 500 kb. Would it hurt to let us have 20-40kb bigger sigs !!!

XXI Inc
  • XXI Inc

    Playa

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2009

#4

Posted 18 September 2009 - 11:12 AM

I never had such a problem with sigs. Just save them as PNG or JPG.

Ats.
  • Ats.

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009
  • None

#5

Posted 18 September 2009 - 12:25 PM

Annoying is that avatars can be enormous sized, but sigs 80kbs...

Many times when I make myself (or to someone else) a sig it is always 10-20kb bigger than the limit. And that's frustrating, I must resize it to smaller (px).

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#6

Posted 18 September 2009 - 02:58 PM

QUOTE (XXI Inc @ Sep 18 2009, 12:12)
I never had such a problem with sigs. Just save them as PNG or JPG.

It all depends on the amount and the complexity of the GFX in the sig.
I do use PNGs a lot but more complex sigs (like mine and the ones I do for DDZN) that include more elements are usually very hard to fit in the 80kb limit. As soon as you use blurs or color fading with transparent PNGs the sig size increases so that a perfectly fitting 500x150 sig will not fit in the 80kb limit... It will fit by reducing it to less than 440x120. So, basically, a 100kb limit would make a lot of us happy. smile.gif

gamesguru
  • gamesguru

    Gone Fishing

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2008
  • England
  • Best Writer 2010

#7

Posted 22 September 2009 - 12:08 AM

Yeah, I agree with doc's last comment. People who do allot of GFX and who are good at it, can at times make rather complicated sigs (or poorly put together ones if you're a n00b lol.gif ). I've had it happen many times, there are alternatives like PNG Crush, but such alternatives are complicated for some.

I don't think we will get a bigger limit anytime soon. Maybe in V2? The problem I see is that it will take longer to load pages (and there are people who still use 56k, hence the 56k warning on picture based topics). I don't know if it would strain the server itself as much, because all these sigs are hosted and using the bandwidth of their respective Image Uploader provider. The only thing that bothers me really is that avatars practically have no limit, and some people are not very good at making GIFs. You can see ones that are huge MB munchers and make a page a b*tch to load. I'd rather want to see a restriction in file size for avatars instead if I'm honest orly.gif .

Oh and 500x150 is very small. It's so hard to put detail in such a small area. Mind you , it's to prevent users making huge-ass irrelevant sigs.

Xcommunicated
  • Xcommunicated

    Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#8

Posted 22 September 2009 - 01:02 AM

The problem with sigs not having a limit is that they will stretch the page as they are loaded over slower connections. They don't have a fixed area like avatars do i.e. if you use a 150x150 image in your avatar it will automatically be restricted to 64x64, so avatars typically won't stretch the page as they load.

But yeah, sigs supposedly will have a fixed area, meaning no more oversized sigs or small file size limits, when the apocalypse v2 is released. ph34r.gif

gamesguru
  • gamesguru

    Gone Fishing

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2008
  • England
  • Best Writer 2010

#9

Posted 22 September 2009 - 12:07 PM

I've seen members though with avatars above 64x64pxl. I don't think they're Forum Moderators either. It's usually them avatars that are white and have a blue vector in them. One of them looks like the Mario Chain-Chomp (just one example), I'm pretty sure I've seen avatars above 64x64. Maybe such members have this before such a 64x64 limit was introduced? But then again, I'm sure newer members don them.

Whatever, probably my mind playing tricks on me, but I know what I saw! *waves cane like an old man*

Mista.
  • Mista.

    m'I stA

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2009

#10

Posted 22 September 2009 - 12:47 PM

Maybe its not so much about the sig size, but it really makes me angry when you see a f*cking 500kb avatar but we photochoppers have to f*cking do with 80 f*ck!!!


It would not hurt you to let us make 20-40 kb biggers avatars ! ! !

BTW, who uses 56k net? like in this forum is 286,769 registered members and then there are like 20 people who use 56k ! ! !

Its not like an excuse

copperwire93
  • copperwire93

    Copperdude

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2008

#11

Posted 22 September 2009 - 12:57 PM

QUOTE (gamesguru @ Sep 22 2009, 21:07)
I've seen members though with avatars above 64x64pxl. I don't think they're Forum Moderators either. It's usually them avatars that are white and have a blue vector in them. One of them looks like the Mario Chain-Chomp (just one example), I'm pretty sure I've seen avatars above 64x64.

You mean like these?
user posted imageuser posted imageuser posted imageuser posted image

Well those are from IPB avatar gallery, you can find them under "Pre-installed avatars".

gamesguru
  • gamesguru

    Gone Fishing

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2008
  • England
  • Best Writer 2010

#12

Posted 22 September 2009 - 01:19 PM

Ah okay, thanks for clearing that up icon14.gif .
I think I used an avatar from the GTA IV section when I first signed up, and after that started using my own made avatars, so I wouldn't have come across that smile.gif .

Pico
  • Pico

    cinnamon ropes

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2009

#13

Posted 26 September 2009 - 07:17 AM

Keeping it a fixed size is fine by me. But the damn 80kb size limit is sh*t, imo. Way too small for current standards. I've had to scrap sigs I've spent a while on because I wanted to use a GIF or PNG file. We don't need an insane size, I doubt a jump to a couple hundred KB would slow people down with sh*ttier connections. 250kb-500kb should work awesome.

Please up it, oh masters of the forum. Please!
The 500x150px is fine, just up the file size limit.

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#14

Posted 26 September 2009 - 01:23 PM

QUOTE (Pico @ Sep 26 2009, 08:17)
Please up it, oh masters of the forum. Please!
The 500x150px is fine, just up the file size limit.

I agree.
I'd be happy even with a 100kb limit. biggrin.gif

The Guru
  • The Guru

    Ghetto Star

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2009
  • None
  • Picture of the Year 2010

#15

Posted 26 September 2009 - 04:31 PM

Yes. The dimensions can stay the same way but the file size should be raised to 100kb. It would help a sh*tload.

ScratchCard
  • ScratchCard

    Arc.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2009

#16

Posted 26 September 2009 - 05:17 PM

Imo 500x150 is too small aswell.. it should be changed to about 500x200.. seriously, even 500x180 would be better then this confused.gif

geomy
  • geomy

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2006

#17

Posted 26 September 2009 - 10:14 PM

The dimensions are plenty big, almost too big. It's annoying on other forums when people have a 600x800 signature and a wall of text, and the annoyance is compounded when everyone posting does. 500x100 would be sufficient IMO, but I agree that a larger filesize isn't too much to ask and wouldn't be that noticeable on a 56k connection.

Mista.
  • Mista.

    m'I stA

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2009

#18

Posted 26 September 2009 - 10:17 PM

So What the f*ck do you think mods ?

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#19

Posted 28 September 2009 - 01:12 AM

QUOTE (Mista. @ Sep 26 2009, 23:17)
So What the f*ck do you think mods ?

Flower power I guess tounge2.gif

Seriously, a MOD answer would be sweet. smile.gif

Xcommunicated
  • Xcommunicated

    Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#20

Posted 28 September 2009 - 01:47 AM

QUOTE (docrikowski @ Sep 27 2009, 20:12)
Seriously, a MOD answer would be sweet. smile.gif

I already gave an explanation above. Besides, it's up to the admins, and the answer they gave me was basically no change will be made to sig file size limit, but more likely a 20kb restriction on avatars will be reinstated.

coin-god
  • coin-god

    High Roller

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2007

#21

Posted 28 September 2009 - 02:15 AM

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Sep 27 2009, 22:47)
QUOTE (docrikowski @ Sep 27 2009, 20:12)
Seriously, a MOD answer would be sweet.  smile.gif

I already gave an explanation above. Besides, it's up to the admins, and the answer they gave me was basically no change will be made to sig file size limit, but more likely a 20kb restriction on avatars will be reinstated.

You talked about the Dimensions of the image. We are talking about the File Size in KB.

Girish
  • Girish

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2006
  • India
  • Best Moderator 2011

#22

Posted 28 September 2009 - 06:45 AM

QUOTE (goin-god @ Sep 28 2009, 07:45)
QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Sep 27 2009, 22:47)
QUOTE (docrikowski @ Sep 27 2009, 20:12)
Seriously, a MOD answer would be sweet.  smile.gif

I already gave an explanation above. Besides, it's up to the admins, and the answer they gave me was basically no change will be made to sig file size limit , but more likely a 20kb restriction on avatars will be reinstated.

You talked about the Dimensions of the image. We are talking about the File Size in KB.

Xcomm is talking about the file size limit only. Looks like no changes will be made.

The restriction on avatar size is a good idea though. No more of those long ass 1-2 MB YouTube avatars.

ScratchCard
  • ScratchCard

    Arc.

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2009

#23

Posted 28 September 2009 - 03:11 PM

20kb is way too low, are there really people pissed of by 22kb avatars? confused.gif

100kb sounds better.

coin-god
  • coin-god

    High Roller

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2007

#24

Posted 28 September 2009 - 06:13 PM

QUOTE (girishb @ Sep 28 2009, 03:45)
QUOTE (goin-god @ Sep 28 2009, 07:45)
QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Sep 27 2009, 22:47)
QUOTE (docrikowski @ Sep 27 2009, 20:12)
Seriously, a MOD answer would be sweet.  smile.gif

I already gave an explanation above. Besides, it's up to the admins, and the answer they gave me was basically no change will be made to sig file size limit , but more likely a 20kb restriction on avatars will be reinstated.

You talked about the Dimensions of the image. We are talking about the File Size in KB.

Xcomm is talking about the file size limit only. Looks like no changes will be made.

The restriction on avatar size is a good idea though. No more of those long ass 1-2 MB YouTube avatars.

Girish, i meant the explanation he gave above. Not his last post smile.gif

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#25

Posted 29 September 2009 - 12:53 AM

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Sep 28 2009, 02:47)
QUOTE (docrikowski @ Sep 27 2009, 20:12)
Seriously, a MOD answer would be sweet.  smile.gif

I already gave an explanation above. Besides, it's up to the admins, and the answer they gave me was basically no change will be made to sig file size limit, but more likely a 20kb restriction on avatars will be reinstated.

Ok, thanks. icon14.gif
Sorry about that.

Xcommunicated
  • Xcommunicated

    Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here.

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#26

Posted 29 September 2009 - 04:01 AM

QUOTE (goin-god @ Sep 28 2009, 13:13)
QUOTE (girishb @ Sep 28 2009, 03:45)
QUOTE (goin-god @ Sep 28 2009, 07:45)
QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Sep 27 2009, 22:47)
QUOTE (docrikowski @ Sep 27 2009, 20:12)
Seriously, a MOD answer would be sweet.  smile.gif

I already gave an explanation above. Besides, it's up to the admins, and the answer they gave me was basically no change will be made to sig file size limit , but more likely a 20kb restriction on avatars will be reinstated.

You talked about the Dimensions of the image. We are talking about the File Size in KB.

Xcomm is talking about the file size limit only. Looks like no changes will be made.

The restriction on avatar size is a good idea though. No more of those long ass 1-2 MB YouTube avatars.

Girish, i meant the explanation he gave above. Not his last post smile.gif

Yes, and it explained why avatars currently have no limit on file size and why signatures do. Once again though, the larger a signature's file size is, the longer it takes to load. The longer it takes to load means sudden stretching of the page once it has loaded, which is annoying especially on slower connections. If the signature spaces were permanently fixed to the maximum 500x150 dimension regardless of whatever was in each person's sig, then the file size limit would be a lot higher I'd think since it wouldn't matter how long it took to load because it wouldn't abruptly stretch the page. yawn.gif

-maddog-
  • -maddog-

    - SkyBum -

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2004
  • Norway

#27

Posted 18 January 2010 - 09:41 PM Edited by -maddog-, 18 January 2010 - 09:44 PM.

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Sep 28 2009, 01:47)
QUOTE (docrikowski @ Sep 27 2009, 20:12)
Seriously, a MOD answer would be sweet.  smile.gif

I already gave an explanation above. Besides, it's up to the admins, and the answer they gave me was basically no change will be made to sig file size limit, but more likely a 20kb restriction on avatars will be reinstated.

What was their argument for not increasing the limit for sigs with a petty 20kb? its still NOTHING! Head over to the "funny picture" topic for example! No one is complaining about having trouble loading the photos in threads where there are 300+ kb images!

The width and height limit on sigs is fine! even too big for my liking! But yea, 80 -> 100 kb is next to nothing!

@Xcommunicated: I hear ya about that sudden stretch issue.. But can't the guys even consider just testing it out? Perhaps running a poll to see if people are having trouble with it?

my two...

Jevon
  • Jevon

    Advocate

  • Inactive Staff
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2001
  • None

#28

Posted 18 January 2010 - 09:51 PM

QUOTE (-maddog- @ Jan 18 2010, 21:41)
What was their argument for not increasing the limit for sigs with a petty 20kb? its still NOTHING! Head over to the "funny picture" topic for example! No one is complaining about having trouble loading the photos in threads where there are 300+ kb images!

The width and height limit on sigs is fine! even too big for my liking! But yea, 80 -> 100 kb is next to nothing!

That's a rubbish example - people expect pictures in that topic.

20kb was massive back in the day - check out these 4kb demos for example.

Oh, and 200kb+ for some cra.. rubbish little avatar like that? Srsly? sarcasm.gif

-maddog-
  • -maddog-

    - SkyBum -

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2004
  • Norway

#29

Posted 18 January 2010 - 10:14 PM

I didn't come here to have you throw that attitude at me! I was asking a simple question!

But you probably won't budge so im going to let it be!

btw its not "back in the day" anymore.. Its 2010 and making such a minor change wouldn't hurt a single person!

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#30

Posted 18 January 2010 - 10:57 PM

Meh, maddog, I think the goal of a discussion forum should be to remain as free from rich media as possible. I think Jevvie's attitude is the result of fighting this uphill battle for a while now. In other words, a member's signature or avatar shouldn't really be the focal point of his post. It makes sense from a design standpoint, badwidth considerations, and overall quality control of this place.

I mean, personally, your current signature scares the sh*t out of me every time I'm browsing the forums at work. Imagine how much sh*t I'd get in if was actually gyrating. Or dripping. You get the picture.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users