AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > Forum & Site Feedback

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-01-19, 16:05   Link #1
Toddler Naruto
Playful Explorer
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Fair Oaks, California
Age: 25
Question Avatar and Profile Picture Size Limits

I was wondering, but any chance of the avatar and profile picture size limits being increased, to at least 150x150, if not more?
Toddler Naruto is offline  
Old 2012-01-19, 16:22   Link #2
NightWish
Crushcrushcrush
*AnimeSuki Site Staff
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Age: 34
This and similar requests have been made before (see the tags I've added), but they were all ultimately rejected. Considering again I can't see the reasoning changing, so the answer is probably still no.
__________________
Lay down on the ground, and let the tears run from you, crying to the grass and trees and heaven, finally on your knees; Let me live again…
NightWish is offline  
Old 2012-01-19, 16:22   Link #3
NeoChan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Infront of the Anime Shop
Age: 29
Wink

adding to bigger files size to 100kb for avatars for better GIFs
NeoChan is offline  
Old 2012-01-19, 16:24   Link #4
Klashikari
Swords•Maidens Maniac
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe, Belgium, Brussels
Age: 27
A lot of people actually manage to deal quite well with the limitations. From my perspective, allowing "better GIF" is also a door wide open for obnoxiously long gif being more distracting than anything. Your milage may vary, but keeping it simple is often way better.
Klashikari is online now  
Old 2012-01-19, 16:25   Link #5
Toddler Naruto
Playful Explorer
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Fair Oaks, California
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWish View Post
This and similar requests have been made before (see the tags I've added), but they were all ultimately rejected. Considering again I can't see the reasoning changing, so the answer is probably still no.
I only want the size limit changed so I can use a bigger version of my avatar/profile picture (I use the same drawing for both).
Toddler Naruto is offline  
Old 2012-01-20, 01:37   Link #6
Dist
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 23
Send a message via MSN to Dist
How does increasing it to 100kb allow longer and more annoying gifs? Hardly does, because its just 50kb more. Hell, if you wanted to make something annoying, you can do it within 50kb too, but thats not the point.

I still think size increase is in order. At least allow avatars up to 75kb ;<
__________________
The joys of a universe made and unmade, friends across time, shall be your ray of light
Dist is offline  
Old 2012-01-20, 09:14   Link #7
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
At one time when bandwidth was a scarce commodity the size limits made sense. Given the global reach of AS, I'm sure there must be some members who still rely on dialup, but most of us probably have some form of broadband service these days. Also I see more and more people posting enormous graphic images, sometimes 1280x720 or even larger, in discussion threads. These slow down thread loading times much more than avatars do.

I realize that you have to store images and signatures on the server, while these large images are usually stored off-site. Still even if all 10,000 or so active members increased their avatars from 50K to 100K, storage would still only increase by half a gigabyte. I suppose your bandwidth bill would go up slightly, too, but I doubt that's really the issue either.

I've spent some hours refining animated gifs to fit under 50K, and I can say it's a tedious process. I'd agree that the more talented among us can cram a lot into 50K, and I've learned a lot about animation and graphics from trying to stay within the limits. Still I've got a few avatars like this that I could never get close to the 50K ceiling. It would fit in 100K, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dist View Post
Hell, if you wanted to make something annoying, you can do it within 50kb too,
Indeed. Flashing avatars are especially bad since they pose a seizure risk for epileptics along with being annoying.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline  
Old 2012-01-20, 10:00   Link #8
Akarin
...
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Age: 14
I know bandwidth isn't that much of a problem for most people, but an avatar with a lot of animation/frames/150x150 is usually very distracting and unnecessarily large.

Avatars are simply a way of making an easy way to identify members, and I think that can be done perfectly fine in 100x100 50kb.

Respectfully I disagree, I think it should've stayed at 100x100 50kb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
Still I've got a few avatars like this that I could never get close to the 50K ceiling. It would fit in 100K, though.
I just cut 16 frames and here's the result:



Akarin is offline  
Old 2012-01-20, 10:17   Link #9
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost My Music View Post
I just cut 16 frames and here's the result
Yes, but you lost some of the subtlety as a result. I didn't say it was impossible. I found it hard to preserve all the detail I wanted without sacrificing image quality. That's a pretty common trade-off in making animated avatars. I also made this back when Toshokan Sensou was released (2008) when my avatar-making skills weren't as polished as they are now.

Look, I don't really care if the size limit is increased on not. I just wanted to raise the question of whether the limits that were imposed years ago based on the speed of members' Internet connections and demands on the AS infrastructure were still justified today.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline  
Old 2012-01-20, 10:19   Link #10
Klashikari
Swords•Maidens Maniac
*Graphic Designer
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe, Belgium, Brussels
Age: 27
Right now, the limitations aren't based on the bandwith, but rather how increasing the limits would lead to the issues I've mentioned above.
I never stated you can't make any annoying avatar within the limits. The issue is how things can go much worse with an extended limit, that's all.
Klashikari is online now  
Old 2012-01-20, 10:27   Link #11
Om Nerabdator
~Maru~
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoChan View Post
adding to bigger files size to 100kb for avatars for better GIFs
im hoping for this aswell, 50kb is too small for a proper gif since it only allows 4-5 frames at most which leads you to making a choppy gif instead of a fluid looking one, unless you reduce the quality then it just looks like shit.

im against that 150x150 option though that really would be pretty distracting
__________________
Om Nerabdator is offline  
Old 2012-01-20, 17:41   Link #12
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Om Nerabdator View Post
im hoping for this aswell, 50kb is too small for a proper gif since it only allows 4-5 frames at most which leads you to making a choppy gif instead of a fluid looking one, unless you reduce the quality then it just looks like shit.
Take a look at Pelli's Cross Game avatar that I linked to earlier. It has 22 (!) frames and remarkable quality. I just don't have his talent; probably few of us do.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline  
Old 2012-01-20, 18:40   Link #13
Triple_R
Center Attraction
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 32
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
The size of the avatar, in the sense of "length by width", should remain the same I think.

But I think that shifting from a 50 kb limit to a 100 kb limit would probably be a good idea, as it enables more flexibility for avatar makers without having any significant negative side-effects, in my view. It would also allow for more detail to show up in an avatar, which would likely simply make many avatars look better.
__________________
Triple_R is offline  
Old 2012-01-20, 18:47   Link #14
NeoChan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Infront of the Anime Shop
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple_R View Post
The size of the avatar, in the sense of "length by width", should remain the same I think.

But I think that shifting from a 50 kb limit to a 100 kb limit would probably be a good idea, as it enables more flexibility for avatar makers without having any significant negative side-effects, in my view. It would also allow for more detail to show up in an avatar, which would likely simply make many avatars look better.
smoother gifs and better quality... for the annoying stuffs.. we can trust the moderators for that...
NeoChan is offline  
Old 2012-01-21, 00:04   Link #15
Reverzer0
Sleeping
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: lane 7
Age: 2
for me 50kb is too high. 35kb is enough for animation however i respect the one's who wanted to increase more than 50kb and 120x120.

edited: i mean 150x150 lol",
__________________
Reverzer0 is offline  
Old 2012-01-21, 00:52   Link #16
Om Nerabdator
~Maru~
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
Take a look at Pelli's Cross Game avatar that I linked to earlier. It has 22 (!) frames and remarkable quality. I just don't have his talent; probably few of us do.
thats the problem hardly any of us are skilled like that!

22 frames wtf im lucky to fit 8
__________________
Om Nerabdator is offline  
Old 2012-01-21, 05:49   Link #17
Kagayaki
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
Right now, the limitations aren't based on the bandwith, but rather how increasing the limits would lead to the issues I've mentioned above.
I never stated you can't make any annoying avatar within the limits. The issue is how things can go much worse with an extended limit, that's all.
All the annoying avatars are actually small files though. They're the flashing ones or the really short, fast, jerky loops. Longer, slower, smoother loops with more complex motions are almost always less annoying, IMO. Everything that makes animated avatars look good is facilitated by higher filesizes, not lower filesizes, so I don't see how placing a filesize limit gives animators any incentive to create less annoying pictures.
__________________
Kagayaki is offline  
Old 2012-01-21, 08:07   Link #18
felix
sleepyhead
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
To be perfectly honest, the following are annoying to look at,
  • crappy animation
  • crappy image quality (artifacts, overopetimization)
  • choppy animation resulted from optimization
  • avatars with animation puasing midway
  • some other optimization issue (bluring, crappy cropping, etc)
But maybe that's just me.

I don't know if I care too much about avatar size as much as I care for signature size limit. I don't see how something with 8 times the surface area is constraint to a LOWER file size! (50k bytes < 50KB) It's probably gotten way worse over the years with modern artwork becoming more detailed and refined compared to the blobs of color of old. I mean really, I'm not asking to be able to save 1 megabyte files, I just want stupid jpeg at decent quality.

IMO, the whole image size issue should be something only affecting GIFs and PNGs (or combinations using them and other formats) since they're the only ones who can get animated and/or take absurd amounts of space, if you're image is a jpeg you should just be constraint by the dimentions and be allowed to save at the quality that looks decent (since you can't physically reach a filesize that would cause problems to begin with! so what's the point of having a limit?). The current limit is just annoyingly stuck 10 to 30 kb short of good quality in 99% of cases—which is kind of silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
Take a look at Pelli's Cross Game avatar that I linked to earlier. It has 22 (!) frames and remarkable quality. I just don't have his talent; probably few of us do.
It has little to do with skill and more to do with the source. The source has very uniform colors, so even if you percieve it as moving there's actually very little movement in it. It's easier to fix noise in a source like that then it is to fix noise in something with a lot more detail or more fluid animation. Additionally the animation style helps a lot too. The over simplified style there looks good even if you chop off 70% of frames (not even counting duplicates).
__________________
felix is offline  
Old 2012-01-22, 14:24   Link #19
Kusa-San
I'll end it before April.
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Om Nerabdator View Post

im against that 150x150 option though that really would be pretty distracting
Same here. I'm totally against this increase. 100X100px is the perfect size. More will be too distracting and we don't need that.

Serioulsy, it's great as it is right now.
__________________
Kusa-San is offline  
Old 2012-01-22, 14:28   Link #20
felix
sleepyhead
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kusa-San View Post
Same here. I'm totally against this increase. 100X100px is the perfect size. More will be too distracting and we don't need that.

Serioulsy, it's great as it is right now.
I'll would like to echo this sentiment (assuming the original point wasn't referring to profiles). For general use a with of 100px is ideal. The only other variant I've found to be adequet is 100x125 (basically photographic proportions) but people are more used to squares so it's probably best left at 100x100
__________________
felix is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
avatar, avatar size, forum settings, profile picture, profile picture size

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.