Maximum signature dimensions

It would be nice if it stayed(or became) 75kb. People donated for the forums to come back up, and everything's being restored but nothing's being additionally added. There might be a few board upgrades, but nothing actually beneficial directly to the user.

This would also help signature makers since they've been forced under the 50kb rule for quite some time now.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Yes I'd like to see this addressed as 50kb really does suck. 200kb limit is what I think is reasonable. Seriously what's the big deal? 56k has learned to deal with bandwidth sucking sites for years now. Why make the majority suffer for them?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

So I take it that it ISN'T true?? Acer, you're on staff - can you confirm? ;_;

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't think it is. I heard that chocosig allows you to store 75kb, so some people thought that the overall restrictions were the same.

How ya doing, buddy?

Why would you be allowed to store a 50~ kb signature if you're not allowed to use it?

Pointless.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

The signature filesize limit is still 50 KB, despite the size allowance for ChocoSig. You can ask bobo why he set that limit.

FELIPE NO

Nobody has actually discussed it yet. Bobo was acting on his own when he specified a 75kb limit.

Personally I wouldn't mind a 75kb limit, but nothing bigger than that. Optimize your images =/

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I still optomize my images, Blah. But sometimes there isn't much you can do.

Take this beauty here.



It barely fits on imageshack at 1022.5 KB and I pulled a bunch of tricks for that. It's well within sigpic dimensions but I can't make it anywhere near the 50 kb or 70 kb without it looking like shit and/or being really fucking small like my current guu sigpic. And when I do that I lose more detail and you can hardly tell what it comes from.

So while I can do low-frame count gif in the 50 kb limit okay it's one bitch in and a half to do it with larger-frame count gifs. I often have to find opportune gif opportunities where I can clear out most of the gif and have mostly one background and have new frames for just mouth movements. I barely squeezed by with the bears in my sigs by pulling off a lot of tricks and believe me it takes hours of fucking irritating time.

Now let me show you what 200 kb will let you pull off with the gif I showed you above.

at 64 colors and no dither

and even smaller, no dither but 256 colors.

Do you see the small range in those sizes and how much I was able to get out of that while being in just the 200 kb limit? I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. So now reduce that 150 kb more and see that "oh boy it's not fun times at all."

Hell it might be that Adobe ImageReady is a sucky program for making optimized gifs in. If you could recommend one that is better and that'll let me crack in decent size gifs without looking like shit while allowing for the current limits then fine but I'm not seeing it right now.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by AcerBandit

I still optomize my images, Blah. But sometimes there isn't much you can do.

Take this beauty here.



It barely fits on imageshack at 1022.5 KB and I pulled a bunch of tricks for that. It's well within sigpic dimensions but I can't make it anywhere near the 50 kb or 70 kb without it looking like shit and/or being really fucking small like my current guu sigpic. And when I do that I lose more detail and you can hardly tell what it comes from.

So while I can do low-frame count gif in the 50 kb limit okay it's one bitch in and a half to do it with larger-frame count gifs. I often have to find opportune gif opportunities where I can clear out most of the gif and have mostly one background and have new frames for just mouth movements. I barely squeezed by with the bears in my sigs by pulling off a lot of tricks and believe me it takes hours of fucking irritating time.

Now let me show you what 200 kb will let you pull off with the gif I showed you above.

at 64 colors and no dither

and even smaller, no dither but 256 colors.

Do you see the small range in those sizes and how much I was able to get out of that while being in just the 200 kb limit? I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. So now reduce that 150 kb more and see that "oh boy it's not fun times at all."

Hell it might be that Adobe ImageReady is a sucky program for making optimized gifs in. If you could recommend one that is better and that'll let me crack in decent size gifs without looking like shit while allowing for the current limits then fine but I'm not seeing it right now.

If keeping the filesize limits at 50k stops people using things like that for a sig, I'm all for it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

=/

I fail to see how it's any worse than your cat which scurries off into an invisible wall halfway across your sig space. But I digress it was merely an example and to get upset over it would be ima- FUCK YOU SHIN! >=U

Most amazing jew boots

To be honest, that Guu sig is way better than that cat shit any day.

Can we get some real .gifs in Shins sig that don't suck or what.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bigblah

Nobody has actually discussed it yet. Bobo was acting on his own when he specified a 75kb limit.

Personally I wouldn't mind a 75kb limit, but nothing bigger than that. Optimize your images =/

What about the people who can't optimize worth shit. :\/

Take Elixir here. He likes to make signatures, but isn't entirely experienced in the department of saving in a specific format. Then there's the amount of colors to use. Then there's things like dithering, diffusion, selective, adaptive, and oh god I'm already lost. They're all minor differences but they add up and make a big difference in the end. It's like saying a dollar isn't much, but it all adds up.

Point is, 75kb sounds plausable. Most of the signatures I've made(or tried making, heh) range between 50~100kb. If you're really that worried about the size(wait, what did donations go towards again.) then decrease the dimensions and increase the size. A maximum of 400x300 sounds fine. I've checked in photoshop just now and it seems pretty reasonable.

I also like how a certain person's signature was 49kb, but displayed as 51kb in properties and was signature police'd, yet another certain person's Ace Combat signature was well over 550x in dimensions and it took 2 weeks before I saw any change.

Probably because it was an Ace Combat sig.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Why is there a limit on the number of images?

In the past I had a zero signature that looked like one image but was actually one image split into 13 parts and carefully assembled with vbcode. I wasn't caught for having it, but I did not understand why 13 images which, when assembled, was under the maximum signature pic filesize and visible size, was technically unallowed.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Yeah I loved that one Eleo. I wanted to do something like that too but oh no more files equals more cry time for 56k or some crap.

Also, no Elixir. The dimensions are fine as is.

FELIPE NO

Remove filesize limits entirely. Just add a feature which allows a user to block whatever he or she doesn't like.

Of course no one would block mine.

::Ace Combat Zero intro movie::

Double Post:
Uh, what is the point of multiple images. Ever heard of Photoshop layers.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Yeah seriously, it would be awesome if people could just block sigs that were a certain size and higher if they wanted to. This would be nice for 56kers. How hard would that be to implement?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Seems kind of stupid to have dimensions which slightly stretch people's signatures yet the filesize is still so low. That's the equivalent of having a 1600x resolution wallpaper in 16bit.

Also, isn't Megalith's signature stretching the signaturepostbit length? Whatever.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Shin

If keeping the filesize limits at 50k stops people using things like that for a sig, I'm all for it.

Dude, you don't like megabyte-sized signatures with dancing anime characters? What the fuck is wrong with you?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Megalith

Double Post:
Uh, what is the point of multiple images. Ever heard of Photoshop layers.

I don't see how layers prevents one from requiring multiple images.

In my cases I actually needed multiple links. Since vbcode doesn't have any kind of imagemap code, the only way to achieve the same ends is to split the image into smaller images and have different links for each image.

Behold, punk:


The intention was that people could click the various pieces of text at the bottom to rate me or reach my FTP thread.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Elixir

Seems kind of stupid to have dimensions which slightly stretch people's signatures yet the filesize is still so low. That's the equivalent of having a 1600x resolution wallpaper in 16bit.

Also, isn't Megalith's signature stretching the signaturepostbit length? Whatever.

Why are you using my sig space as an example? I told you my sigpic was ridiculously smaller than normal. I've had no issues with the width and height limits of sigpics they have here although it would be nice if they got rid of that stupid 2 picture limit. I could see that getting out of hand but in the case of Eleo there's a good reason for more than 2 images. Besides he still followed dimension and size rules so I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I would imagine 13 small images on 56k would be slower on 56k than a typical image, because it has to download the individual files as oppose to a whole image.

But yeah, nobody has 56k anymore. Not even Infernal. I've had the pleasure of being on a 64k rate and browsing gamingforce at the same time - it isn't enjoyable at all. Still, what is all the donating for if we can't even have a 25kb increase in sigs.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Elixir

Seems kind of stupid to have dimensions which slightly stretch people's signatures yet the filesize is still so low. That's the equivalent of having a 1600x resolution wallpaper in 16bit.

Shall we lower the dimensions, then?

I recall that Aardark made a thread about this a while ago, and people were generally in favour of reducing the image dimensions.

Originally Posted by Elixir

I also like how a certain person's signature was 49kb, but displayed as 51kb in properties and was signature police'd, yet another certain person's Ace Combat signature was well over 550x in dimensions and it took 2 weeks before I saw any change.

There is a report button, use it.


By the way, the 2 image rule was mainly to prevent people from circumventing the total combined filesize limit (which Megalith did repeatedly). And most of the time we don't care if your signature is 1 or 2 KB over the limit unless someone complains about it.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bigblah

Shall we lower the dimensions, then?

I recall that Aardark made a thread about this a while ago, and people were generally in favour of reducing the image dimensions.

You know I don't remember it being that way. I remember most people thought the dimensions were fine as is.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bigblah

Shall we lower the dimensions, then?

I recall that Aardark made a thread about this a while ago, and people were generally in favour of reducing the image dimensions.

What did we donate for exactly again? If we reduce the dimensions, it's only fair that the filesize is increased. I think alot of people get sick of seeing the same huge images over and over.

Originally Posted by Bigblah

By the way, the 2 image rule was mainly to prevent people from circumventing the total combined filesize limit (which Megalith did repeatedly)

Past tense. Does that mean the 2 image rule is going to change in the future? Actually, what Megalith did was perfectly fine though, considering it was a single image with transparency which appeared as multiple ones. Just because they appear as individual images doesn't mean they are. It's good use of 550x300.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Elixir

I would imagine 13 small images on 56k would be slower on 56k than a typical image, because it has to download the individual files as oppose to a whole image.

I don't see how that would be slower. As long as the total size of all the images is less than 50KB, I imagine the difference in time it takes to download the signature for 56k modems would be negligible.

There's nowhere I can't reach.