Signatures Update

>.> ------ Ijffdrie

 

i blame BoP

 

SC2 said he changed the limit to 100kb... seems he didn't.

I propose 200kb to compensate for the dimension restrictions. And also to make animated avatars possible.

 

*cough* mine's animated and I'm not the only one. w00t inb4HaX!

 

yup, it's so cute =3

 

I don't want massive animated avatars like we had before...

 

...Instead you allow massive sigs

The ones we had before were over 1MB. I can understand if you don't want that, but 200 isn't so bad, especially considering today's internet connections. But I'm fine with whatever you choose since my avy already works with the current limits. *shrugs*

 

The problem from the beginning was that not everyone has access to these "today's internet connections".

 

I think 30 - 50kB is reasonable for an animated avatar

 

Yes and I was one of the people who tried to point that out when it came to huge signatures and avatars.

BoP that's enough for elementary animation like Meee's or my avatar, but for rendered, proper animations (like sc2 unit portraits), you'd need at least 150kb, and that's just one movement looped at a smooth frame rate. But of course if there's no demand for it (there doesn't seem to be, although it might be because the ones we had were over 1mb), then 50kb is enough.

 

but it doesn't have to be RGB

You can cut the file size significantly by converting the image to indexed with out any apparent loss of quality and most people won't notice if you cut out half of the frames.

 

I try not to produce crap.

 

NO. Massive sigs are over 300 pixels. Large sigs are over 200 Pixels. Normal sigs are over 100 Pixels. Small sigs are over 50 Pixels. Useless sigs are over 0 Pixels.

...which means all sigs are useless and probably small... seeing how I didn't put maximum limits to every category. But you know what I mean.

 

indexed mode does noit mean crap.

Every single avatar I have used is indexed to reduce file size.
Would you describe any of them as crap?

As for dropping frames, if you know what you are doing you can remove a large chunk of file size and no one can tell the diffrernce.




Also if you don't like to produce crap then you shouldn't be using JPEGs for art anyways since it screws up the colors

 

In a 200x200 image? Nobody can tell the difference, so there's no point in using anything besides jpg. I only use png if I want transparency. And yes, I do know about indexed colour - I would've thought you'd give me at least that much credit. But there is no way you can halve the frames without seeing the difference - only if you record at above 50fps, which is useless. I record at 30 fps, you can't cut that.

@Eatme: a 500x200 sig with a 10 second animation at 25 fps is huge. I meant huge for the space they occupy in kilobytes, which can be up to 150kb for a static image and there's no upper limit to animated sigs. Hence, I said 150kb for avatars would be reasonable.

 

If you already record in 30 fps then the file should be relativeley small.
jpegs are for pictures of things and does a good job at compressing huge images taken with a camera. Color indexed png is better at compressing small images with less color depth. Like sigs and avatars.

 

I've done a few animated avatars and I know that even at 25 fps the files are large.

And why would I want to compress huge images taken with a camera? The whole point of taking pics with a proper camera is to preserve the quality. I think there are better formats to use for camera shots than jpg. Unless you scale it down from its original resolution.

Lastly, your sig is jpg, so don't talk to me about optimisation

 

I didn't make that.

Anyways My point is you don't need a megabyte for an 80x80 avatar.

 

I never said you did.

 

I still think you can go smaller.
Lemme see one of those 150k images you speak of and I will see how far I can reduce its size