2012-01-19, 16:22 | Link #2 |
…Nothing More
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Age: 44
|
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.
|
2012-01-19, 16:24 | Link #4 |
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv180
Graphic Designer
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 38
|
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.
__________________
|
2012-01-19, 16:25 | Link #5 | |
Playful Explorer
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sacramento, California (USA)
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-01-20, 01:37 | Link #6 |
Senior Member
|
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 ;<
__________________
|
2012-01-20, 09:14 | Link #7 |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
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. Indeed. Flashing avatars are especially bad since they pose a seizure risk for epileptics along with being annoying.
__________________
|
2012-01-20, 10:00 | Link #8 | |
...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Age: 25
|
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:
|
|
2012-01-20, 10:17 | Link #9 |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
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.
__________________
|
2012-01-20, 10:19 | Link #10 |
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv180
Graphic Designer
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 38
|
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.
__________________
|
2012-01-20, 10:27 | Link #11 | |
~Maru~
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
im against that 150x150 option though that really would be pretty distracting
__________________
|
|
2012-01-20, 17:41 | Link #12 | |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-01-20, 18:40 | Link #13 |
Senior Member
Author
|
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.
__________________
|
2012-01-20, 18:47 | Link #14 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Infront of the Anime Shop
Age: 39
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-01-21, 00:52 | Link #16 | |
~Maru~
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
22 frames wtf im lucky to fit 8
__________________
|
|
2012-01-21, 05:49 | Link #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 34
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-01-21, 08:07 | Link #18 | |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
To be perfectly honest, the following are annoying to look at,
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:
__________________
|
|
2012-01-22, 14:24 | Link #19 | |
I'll end it before April.
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
Serioulsy, it's great as it is right now.
__________________
|
|
2012-01-22, 14:28 | Link #20 |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
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
__________________
|
Tags |
avatar, avatar size, forum settings, profile picture, profile picture size |
|
|