Jump to content

» «

New Rules for Avatar and Signatures

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1 reply to this topic

Poll: New Redifined Rules (3 member(s) have cast votes)

New Redifined Rules

  1. Yes (1 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  2. No (2 votes [66.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  • M_Roc

    Douche of the highest order

  • Joined: 26 Oct 2006


Posted 20 August 2013 - 07:56 PM Edited by M_Roc, 20 August 2013 - 08:12 PM.

Okay well just as the titled is represented. I'm pushing for new rules to be applied to the forums regrading Avatars and Signatures.

I've been working with servers and website design for many years and the so called rules you have at this site contradict themselves so horribly who ever made them up should have never even been in a position to qualify for such a important role in the forums. As my argument states the limit size cap on the Signatures are ridiculous. How can one rule be thrown out but the other still stay? It's unprofessional and inadequacy of the site. And the whole re-enabling of signatures, Such a waste of valuable time that could be towards some place else, Why waste precious time on something as tedious as that.

My argument began Here

If a avatar is 500kb and a signature is 80kb per user... that's a total bandwidth of 580kb... way over what is intended to.. just look at the people avatars on the forums, right click and view image proprieties.. most users have around 200kb for a avatar.. It won't make the forums lower then they already are... not if you reverse it so the signatures are no limit and the avatars are ... it will be the same amount of speed. i should know i run servers and design websites for a living! and i wasn't talking about the image dimensions. Now if a avatar is 200kb and you guys don't care... why should a signature be limit a limit of at least 500kb. it won't even hurt the servers...

I think people equate bandwidth with speed by mistake. Speed means the amount of time it takes to cover a distance. That's really more like latency in networking terms. People have better bandwidth ("speed") because their connection can simply send/receive more data at once.

Just picture 2 pipes. One is 1 inch in diameter, and the other is 6 inches in diameter. Now imagine the volume of water that could flow through the 6 inch pipe versus the 1 inch pipe. The water itself flows at a similar rate through both pipes; the difference is that the wider pipe can handle more water. Replace "water" with "data" and you have a basic idea of what's going on.

When thinking about maximizing image quality, resolution is usually the first thing that comes to mind. However, resolution is not the only factor that impacts quality. The amount of bandwidth available and used can have a dramatic impact on image quality. In this report, we examine bandwidth and the effect that it has on quality across numerous cameras.

Which Image Quality is Better?

To better understand image quality, let's start by examining two samples of the same scene side by side:
user posted image
Consider two questions:

† † Which camera has higher resolution? A or B?
† † Which camera is better? A or B?

It is pretty obvious that the image from Camera B is better so this should be a simple case.

The reality is that those images are from the same camera at the same resolution and frame rate (720p/30). All that was done to the camera was changing the Constant Bit Rate target from 512 Kb/s to 8 Mb/s.

Factors Impacting Quality

Even with the same resolution, two common settings impact quality:

† † Bit Rate: Most cameras can have their bit rate adjusted to specific levels (e.g., 512 Kb/s, 2 Mb/s, 8Mb/s, etc.)
† † Quantization Level: Most cameras can have the level of compression adjusted (often called a quality or compression setting with options from 1-10 or 0-100)

Typically, these are mutually exclusive. If you lock in bit rate, the camera will automatically adjust the quantization level to not exceed the bandwidth set. Vice versa, if you set the quantization level, the camera will automatically change the bandwidth consumed to make sure the quality / compression always stays at the same level.

Our Test Process

I wanted to better understand how changes in these two factors impact video quality. To do so, I did a series of tests with three HD cameras: the Axis P1344, the Sony CH140 and the Bosch NBN-921.

For the bandwidth tests, we tested each camera at the following levels:

† † 512 Kb/s
† † 1 Mb/s
† † 2 Mb/s
† † 4 Mb/s
† † 8 Mb/s

I did this across a series of scenes to see how quality would vary in different conditions:

† † Daytime Indoors (300 lux)
† † Nighttime Indoors (.5 lux)
† † Daytime Intersection

Finally, we did a similar series of tests varying the quality level of a VBR camera (the Axis across 0, 30, 60 and 100 levels) to better understand changes in quality and bandwidth consumption.
I just flawed your system.

It's just simple people. And these mods you have here are rude and can't take any type of criticism i am trying to help the website not complain about it, i am here to help out. why doesn't anyone understand. it's like you made this website and now are stuck in 2002. it's time to innovate people.

  • Waddy

    Gods foster son.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2004
  • None


Posted 20 August 2013 - 08:19 PM


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users