PDA

View Full Version : Avatar KB allowance


Reggie
03-11-06, 23:18
I was wondering if the KB allowance would be returning to 15kb at some point? It seems that my avatars become "lossy" when I start to go below that. And sorry if it seems a bit inappropriate to have a new thread just for this question but there wasn't anywhere for me to post in another thread.

Lew
03-11-06, 23:20
Ifranview is good.

tampi
03-11-06, 23:34
I use this: http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/index.php?2.8
Easy thumbnails (Freeware). Very very easy :)

Reggie
03-11-06, 23:43
Thanks, I've been using this before (its actually quite good)

http://www.netmechanic.com/products/accelerate.shtml

Thanks for links as well, I'll download both ;)

Titanium
04-11-06, 00:05
Since the avatar thread isnt really allowed for discussion ill answer your question from there in here.

Tlr said if they can resize avatars without much noticable loss of quality then they can do it and help save bandwidth.

And we may have the 15KB limit back when TLR gets TRF on its own dedicated server.

Geck-o-Lizard
04-11-06, 00:09
Try using gif format rather than jpg. Jpeg's for photos and images with lots of colours, but gif will work better for your cartoony avatar since there are only a few colours in it... Will make it look better at lower filesize.

Reggie
04-11-06, 00:10
*sigh* I go to all that effort and it ends up looking low quality anyway...what the heck, I'll just have to wait and then revert back to my old one. >.<

Edit: *is a bit cheered up* Thanks for the tip Gecko, I'll experiment ;)

Titanium
04-11-06, 00:14
Out of interest, why cant we use photobucket or imageshack to hotlink the avatars instead of usings the forums server? :confused:

Geck-o-Lizard
04-11-06, 00:20
Probably so no image can go up without staff approval.

Titanium
04-11-06, 00:21
Probably so no image can go up without staff approval.

Well then, why can't the person just post it and let the Supermod hotlink it to the avatar section?

Geck-o-Lizard
04-11-06, 00:31
Photobucket lets you change your images while keeping the URL the same. You could have a lovely happy avvie set up for you with full mod approval, then change the image in your Photobucket account to goatse or something. Having it admin-uploads only saves all the bother of having permitted and prohibited URL's, and having to check your avatars every day to make sure nobody's doing any pranks with it...

Titanium
04-11-06, 00:33
Fair enough then, although you could just use imageshack where it cannot be edited? :whi:

But this idea probably wont happen.

Geck-o-Lizard
04-11-06, 00:37
Now what would be the point of having an avatar uploaded to a source where it can't be changed, hotlinked to in your profile? Isn't that almost exactly what we've already got? :p You upload your avvie, the mods apply it to your profile. The only difference I see is the extra 5kb not hosted by Justin that seems to be so crucial to you all. Learn to use better compression techniques and that problem vanishes, lol. Or... are you hoping to have avatars with >20kb filesize limits? In which case you don't even have my sympathy. XD

Titanium
04-11-06, 00:40
Tlr reduced the avatars originally due to bandwidth use so this idea would help it be reduced.
And what do you mean it cant be changed? Its work the same as it does now just using imageshacks hotlinking. You repost your new avatar you want to be changed and ta-da it gets changed!
And I dont need the extra 5KB. :p

Thorn
04-11-06, 00:47
My avatar is 3kb?... that's generous. :p lol

Geck-o-Lizard
04-11-06, 00:57
Tlr reduced the avatars originally due to bandwidth use so this idea would help it be reduced.
And what do you mean it cant be changed? Its work the same as it does now just using imageshacks hotlinking. You repost your new avatar you want to be changed and ta-da it gets changed!
And I dont need the extra 5KB. :p

My point is why reinvent the wheel? We've got very large avvies as it is. Allowing external hotlinking would only serve to complicate the process. I, for one, am glad that no page here spends three quarters of its loading time downloading avatars. http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3563/disguisehg6.gif

xMiSsCrOfTx
04-11-06, 00:59
We've got very large avvies as it is.

Yeah, I remember the old software. What were they back then? Like, 25x25? :vlol:

Titanium
04-11-06, 01:03
My point is why reinvent the wheel? We've got very large avvies as it is. Allowing external hotlinking would only serve to complicate the process. I, for one, am glad that no page here spends three quarters of its loading time downloading avatars. http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3563/disguisehg6.gif

Okay fine forget the suggestion then! :p

Alyssa - Wernt they a bit bigger then that? But yes I do remember those, and the limit was only 4KB back then :D

viper456
04-11-06, 01:07
I use this: http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/index.php?2.8
Easy thumbnails (Freeware). Very very easy :)

that was really helpful! :) thanks hehe

Geck-o-Lizard
04-11-06, 02:22
Yeah, I remember the old software. What were they back then? Like, 25x25? :vlol:

48x48 to be precise. I never stopped being gobsmacked at how much personality could be squished into those postage stamps. :cln:

xMiSsCrOfTx
04-11-06, 02:25
48x48 to be precise. I never stopped being gobsmacked at how much personality could be squished into those postage stamps. :cln:

They were cute :D

Neteru
04-11-06, 03:06
I have to say, for the record here, because I really am ****ed off at some of the whining we've had over this issue.

As long as I have been uploading avatars, long before Justin specifically asked me to try to get them compressed, I recompressed every single member avatar before uploading. Many of them I got down to around 5kb, some as low as 3 or even 2k. Throughout that whole time not one single member noticed their avatar had been recompressed! Not one.

That is, until the day that one member checked and complained. Then of course, other members saw this complaint and so began to check their avatar properties themselves, because of course, they never did tell just by looking, ever. Seeing that their avatars had also been recompressed, they began to complain too.

Most avatars I have found can be recompressed without any discernible loss of quality at all. And every member I've had complain, never once complained all the while I did it and they didn't know about it. That tells me that there is indeed no discernible loss of quality in the eyes of others too.

It is precisely as Gecko has said. You just need to learn to compress better. The net on the whole would be much faster if everybody compressed the glut of images on it in a more efficient way.

mau3genius
04-11-06, 04:43
Have you ever compressed one of my avvies Net?

You can do whatever you want to them, as long as you don't change the format :D

Neteru
04-11-06, 04:56
I must have done. I recall uploading yours a number of times because everytime I simply call your profile up by searching on 'mau' (I'm so lazy I can't be bothered to type the full name because of the slight inconvenience of typing a 3 :D). And in fact, I think it was you who was the member who first noticed when I compressed an avatar of yours because I had changed it from a gif to a jpeg.

jamieoliver22
04-11-06, 10:28
Out of interest, why cant we use photobucket or imageshack to hotlink the avatars instead of usings the forums server? :confused:
Because that would be classed as hotlinking, and would steal bandwidth from their servers.. which they have to pay for.

And I find the KB limit fine as it is. You can't expect millions of people to be using large avatars, it would really take it out on the server. As said above, just stop moaning about it and be happy with what you have got.

Jamie.

Bullethail
04-11-06, 10:32
I have to say, for the record here, because I really am ****ed off at some of the whining we've had over this issue.

As long as I have been uploading avatars, long before Justin specifically asked me to try to get them compressed, I recompressed every single member avatar before uploading. Many of them I got down to around 5kb, some as low as 3 or even 2k. Throughout that whole time not one single member noticed their avatar had been recompressed! Not one.

That is, until the day that one member checked and complained. Then of course, other members saw this complaint and so began to check their avatar properties themselves, because of course, they never did tell just by looking, ever. Seeing that their avatars had also been recompressed, they began to complain too.

Most avatars I have found can be recompressed without any discernible loss of quality at all. And every member I've had complain, never once complained all the while I did it and they didn't know about it. That tells me that there is indeed no discernible loss of quality in the eyes of others too.

It is precisely as Gecko has said. You just need to learn to compress better. The net on the whole would be much faster if everybody compressed the glut of images on it in a more efficient way.

I sympathize! Thanks for all your efforts, Neteru!

jarhead
04-11-06, 11:09
Persoanlly I'd love to have the 15K back but I can live with 10 or below that, mine are never animated so they are easy to get down

Laras Backpack
04-11-06, 11:25
tlr pays a huge amount of money a year to keep this place going and I think we should be more aware for that. We need to keep our avatars down in size so as not to clog the bandwidth. There are many amazing avatars on this site despite the restrictions and they are quite large in size compared to many other forums I've visited. :)

Reggie
04-11-06, 11:31
I didn't expect all this fuss over the avatar issue, I just wanted to know if there were any plans for the 15kb allowance to return, which I consider to be an insignificant question. Thank you for giving me all those compression tips and I'm sorry you're ****ed off over the issue, Net because I know that this does take up a lot of time and I understand your opinions on this.

Titanium
04-11-06, 12:03
Because that would be classed as hotlinking, and would steal bandwidth from their servers.. which they have to pay for.


But they allow hotlinking, every image you post from their site is hotlinking. ;)

Just to get the point across, I dont actually care about the limit, I just cannot seem to get rid of this avatar anyway. :p

I suggested the option because Justin said that he reduces the avatars to save himself some bandwidth, that is why I suggested using imageshack or photobucket, so his bandwidth doesnt have to be used.

rika2
04-11-06, 12:07
I have to say, for the record here, because I really am ****ed off at some of the whining we've had over this issue.

As long as I have been uploading avatars, long before Justin specifically asked me to try to get them compressed, I recompressed every single member avatar before uploading. Many of them I got down to around 5kb, some as low as 3 or even 2k. Throughout that whole time not one single member noticed their avatar had been recompressed! Not one.

That is, until the day that one member checked and complained. Then of course, other members saw this complaint and so began to check their avatar properties themselves, because of course, they never did tell just by looking, ever. Seeing that their avatars had also been recompressed, they began to complain too.

Most avatars I have found can be recompressed without any discernible loss of quality at all. And every member I've had complain, never once complained all the while I did it and they didn't know about it. That tells me that there is indeed no discernible loss of quality in the eyes of others too.

It is precisely as Gecko has said. You just need to learn to compress better. The net on the whole would be much faster if everybody compressed the glut of images on it in a more efficient way.

I didn't know that... Thanks...

Gabi
04-11-06, 13:27
Do you know: you can't have everything you want in life (even though it seems that some of you find that hard to believe).
Justin (who owns the forums and the server) wants the avatars to get compressed to the most efficient size - take it or leave (it).
Yes, it might be a shame that you can't have the one you want in the size you want, but surely you will be able to cope with that kind of frustration (according to child development you should have learned to, when you were about two years old).

Lavinder
04-11-06, 13:44
Really there is no need to moan. You should be glad to even have avatars.

Night Crawler
04-11-06, 14:16
I know I've complained (about them being compressed) but I am at least thankful for having avatars, some forums don't allow them at all and I'd rather have low quality than nothing.

viper456
04-11-06, 14:20
Really there is no need to moan. You should be glad to even have avatars.

yeah :)

that programme that tampi posted ^^^^ is really usefull and can compress your avatar without any quality loss so tehre shouldnt be a prob :)

xcrushterx
04-11-06, 14:30
how do i change my avi

Titanium
04-11-06, 14:33
Find an image that you would like to be your avatar (128 by 128 or less, no more then 10KB) and post it here (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=71596). If the image is saved on your computer then use imageshack.us to upload it. Then post it into the thread. :)

xcrushterx
04-11-06, 14:45
thanks
why is it such a complicated process

StarCroft:AOD
04-11-06, 14:47
I have to say, for the record here, because I really am ****ed off at some of the whining we've had over this issue.

As long as I have been uploading avatars, long before Justin specifically asked me to try to get them compressed, I recompressed every single member avatar before uploading. Many of them I got down to around 5kb, some as low as 3 or even 2k. Throughout that whole time not one single member noticed their avatar had been recompressed! Not one.


Wrong; I didn't complained anything, I just asked, why I can't have the Avatar I made, when it was below 10 KBs, because I was annoyed at the fact that I compressed it with the effect I wanted, (While respecting the rules) and then someone re-Compress it in less than 5 seconds. And a side note, I never knew Avatars where re-Compresed. Now I know it it; And I know the real attitude and how respectful some people can be here, after and while answering a simple question. :rolleyes:

Cochrane
04-11-06, 16:11
It's a little sad that I cannot link to avatars on my own webspace, since that would be a simpler process for me, but given that avatars have to be moderated, I think the current procedure works well enough.

My only suggestion would be: Make the thread where you post your new avatars a sticky one. Is there really any reason why it's not? Currently, new members always have to ask how they can get an avatar, and old ones have to search for the thread every time they want a change. Making it sticky would reduce these problems without really causing any new. It's not important, it's just a thought.

xMiSsCrOfTx
04-11-06, 16:28
Really there is no need to moan. You should be glad to even have avatars.

Exactly. There are many forums that don't even allow them. So quit complaining and be happy. Just because your avatar may look a little fuzzy - I promise you, it's not the end of the world.

Hybrid Soldier
04-11-06, 16:40
Use IRfanview. When saving the file as a Jpeg, you can put it at a certain point.

Ex.

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/1748/exnf5.th.jpg (http://img517.imageshack.us/my.php?image=exnf5.jpg)

I usually save it around 90 because it seems to lower the overall file size and keep the same quality. :wve:

Geck-o-Lizard
04-11-06, 17:44
90? :eek: That's almost completely uncompressed. o_O Even with digital artwork where I need clarity and clean edges, I rarely save my own stuff above 75% quality when it's for the internet. For most things, 60% - 75% should be adequate for reducing filesize without mangling the image. 90% - 100% is overkill for anything you'll put online.

Your screenshot - lower it to 70% compression and the filesize is immediately sliced in half with almost no further visible loss of quality.

Rather than putting a magnifying glass up to the screen and deciding you've compressed it enough when you can just about make out some crusty edges, sit back from the screen at normal viewing distance when you do it. Then you'll have a better idea of how it'll show up when everyone else is surfing. I guarantee you most people will be unable to spot the difference between 70% and 90% when they're just browsing normally, except that the first one loads in half the time.

tampi
04-11-06, 17:51
yeah :)

that programme that tampi posted ^^^^ is really usefull and can compress your avatar without any quality loss so tehre shouldnt be a prob :)
Yes, but nobody pays attention :D ;)

Neteru
04-11-06, 19:54
Interesting what you say there Gecko. For the record, when I resize avatars, I always do them at 80%.

Wrong; I didn't complained anything, I just asked, why I can't have the Avatar I made, when it was below 10 KBs, because I was annoyed at the fact that I compressed it with the effect I wanted, (While respecting the rules) and then someone re-Compress it in less than 5 seconds. And a side note, I never knew Avatars where re-Compresed. Now I know it it; And I know the real attitude and how respectful some people can be here, after and while answering a simple question. :rolleyes:Was my text directed at you specifically? No, it wasn't. Did I mention your name in my post? No, I didn't. ;)

Hybrid Soldier
05-11-06, 23:10
90? :eek: That's almost completely uncompressed. o_O Even with digital artwork where I need clarity and clean edges, I rarely save my own stuff above 75% quality when it's for the internet. For most things, 60% - 75% should be adequate for reducing filesize without mangling the image. 90% - 100% is overkill for anything you'll put online.

Your screenshot - lower it to 70% compression and the filesize is immediately sliced in half with almost no further visible loss of quality.

Rather than putting a magnifying glass up to the screen and deciding you've compressed it enough when you can just about make out some crusty edges, sit back from the screen at normal viewing distance when you do it. Then you'll have a better idea of how it'll show up when everyone else is surfing. I guarantee you most people will be unable to spot the difference between 70% and 90% when they're just browsing normally, except that the first one loads in half the time.

I actually could tell the difference when i put it at 75 once. I could tell right away that some of the picture quality was lost (when comparing 90 to 75). When i save at 90 it's always below 10KB.