signature filesize seems a *little* tight

[Finn]

Well i must admit that since joining i have always wondered why although sig pics are allowed, not very many people have them, and the most that do just seem to have copied and pasted small pics that they have found around the net rather than creating custom ones themselves. I'm used to forums where most people have their own custom signature pic and some of them are absolutely goourgous, it really helps you differentiate between users and spot your own posts in a thread.

I had looked at the signature size post before but was a little confused as there seemed to be 2 different sizes listed and i wasnt sure which one was right. After seeing gregoshis reply to a post confirming the size i decided i'd have a go and create myself a sig pic..

several hours later i came up with this which i was pretty happy with:

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/totalwarsigs/totalwar_sig_full.jpg

I then started looking at getting the file size down within limits and discovered to my horror that even on the very highest compression it still wouldnt fit in the size (not to mention looking absolutely awful too)

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/totalwarsigs/totalwar_sig_highcomp.jpg

after slowly shrinking and cropping the image trying to get it under the file size i finally managed it with :

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/totalwarsigs/totalwar_sig_tiny.gif

although its now lost most of the detail and tbh i'm not happy with it at all.

so the signature size limits are 500x125, a reasonble complex jpg of that size is around 30-35k, at max compression its around 15-20k but it looks hideous.

so the only way that an image of the maximum size could fit in the filesize would make it ugly as hell.

the 2 just seem a bit incongruous..

[TosaInu]

Hello Finn,

I agree with you, some signatures are absolutely gorgeous. And you're right about the settings: it's hard to have a very detailed one at the maximum pixelsize that remains within 10 kb. You'll have to make choices: 'large' or detailed?

Each pageview can have up to 25 posts, those are 25 different persons in the 'worst' case, each having a 30 kb signature picture -> 750 kb, and 100 kb for the avatars (more in case the custom avatar skin is used). Browsing the forums will be a pain for modem users. Then there are also broadband users who exceed their monthly bandwidth and have to struggle with a 28k line. Those people have the choice to bypass the display of avatars and signatures (control panel setting), but it's harsh to deny them all the candy.

Custom avatars can be 10 kb as well, and there's room for yet another image in your profile (personal photograph).


Quote[/b] ]the 2 just seem a bit incongruous..

Agree, but bringing the two in balance with each other while ensuring reasonable download times will reduce those signature pictures to the size of a stamp.

Does this make sense?

[Finn]

btw i didnt mean to come out as arguing with the ruling, i'm an honest citizen gov http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif was just a comment on my experience, but one thing you didnt take into account was those sizes are one off downloads, once in your browser cache you never need to download any of the images again (unless they change)

You also mentioned custom avatar and including the size download in on that, what about choosing not to have one or the other and being allowed to increase the quality of the one you do have? eg say making the total size 20k for BOTH then it is up to the user how they split it between the 2?

I must say of the forums that allowed signature pics, this one does have the tightest limits on filesize, the usual i'm used to is around the same image size but around 30k filesize and they have been frequented by modem users too.

Once again, i dont want to sound like i'm making demands or anything, my original post was partly a rant because i was a bit peeved i couldnt get something that looked good to fit in the size. This is just my personal opinion on the matter and should be taken as such http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Xiphias]

Personally I don't like large signiture pics at all. When you're only running at 800x600 or 1024x768 they tend to eat up a lot of screen space and disrupt the flow of the thread.

Of course the fact that they contain absolutely nothing interesting and are often larger than the post they're attached to doesn't exactly help me like them.

[Gregoshi]

I'll agree that some sig pictures can be very pleasing to the eye, but I'll go along with Xiphias on this one. They can tend to hide the important part of the forum - the text of the posts.

To take the issue to the absurd, I remember one forum I used to visit in which there were no limits. A quite a few of the forum members had several pictures in their sig - most of them very cool. BUT I had to literally scroll through 2 screens full of sig pictures to get to the next post. Very annoying indeed.

I guess what it boils down to is where do you draw the line? Wherever you do, it will be too small for some and too large for others. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

BTW, that is a nice sig picture you created Finn.

[Shahed]

What a beautiful sig Finn.

I use this one on other forums. I did not make it and it is a bit too large for my own preference but a friend made it as a gift and I use it.

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/shahedsig.jpg

I can use that sig on almost every forum I know except this one. I would not actually want to use that sig here anyway as this forum has a look and feel to it which is more subtle and sophisticated. Hence I would like to make myself a sig to match the look and feel of the org.

I am facing the same problem that to have a sig in 10kb which is actually up to my standard, is Hard.

Here's some other sigs made by the same person who made mine:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/gameshots/dayglow3sig.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/shaksig.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/shahedsig.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/apachsig.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/blitzsig.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/tintinsig.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/dextrial.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/dexsig.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/sjakihata1sig.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/sjakihata2sig.jpg

http://varun.go-legion.com/images/sigs/aquariussig.jpg

Again I am not AT ALL suggesting we use sigs this size at the org. But if someone has any ideas on how to get a good sig in 10kb please let me know.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[Finn]

Quote[/b] (Xiphias @ May 01 2004,18:38)]Personally I don't like large signiture pics at all. When you're only running at 800x600 or 1024x768 they tend to eat up a lot of screen space and disrupt the flow of the thread.

Of course the fact that they contain absolutely nothing interesting and are often larger than the post they're attached to doesn't exactly help me like them.
dont get me wrong. i wasnt at all saying the image size should be increased, if anything i would vote to drop it slightly as i would say its a touch on the big side. I was simply saying that you cant get a *good* looking sig of the image size into the required filesize and personally i would rather see well done signatures of a uniform size that fit into the forum than a hodge podge of different things with garing jpg artifacts because people have had to compress it to the maximum to fit in with the ruling.

I have seen forums where there was no limit and the result is attrocious, i have never stayed long at any of them just because the resultant mess makes it impossible to follow any thread.

However i disgaree that they serve no purpose, imo signature pictures give a sense of identity to people, its a lot easier to remember an image than a name and in a communications medium that is text only it really does help to identify people.

and thanks for the compliments gregoshi and sinan http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif and those sigs do look good (if a bit big), if i may ask what is the relevance of the grid over the cockpit on them all, or is it just cos it looks good ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Shahed]

The grid is the artist's style. He likes to connect the grid with a line to the pilot's name.

[Finn]

ahh i see, they look good though :)

and talking about other sigs here are some of my previous ones used on other forums :

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/mysigs/sig1.jpg

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/mysigs/sig2.jpg

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/mysigs/sig3.jpg

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/mysigs/sig4.jpg

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/mysigs/siggy5.jpg


and some i have done for other people :

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/piggysigs/piggy%20angel.jpg

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/piggysigs/piggy%20crow.jpg

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/piggysigs/piggy2.jpg

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/piggysigs/piggy_nin2.jpg

[Shahed]

SWEET

[Xiphias]

Quote[/b] (Finn @ May 02 2004,05:32)]However i disgaree that they serve no purpose, imo signature pictures give a sense of identity to people, its a lot easier to remember an image than a name and in a communications medium that is text only it really does help to identify people.
Sure, but that can be done with small avatars or signitures the size of your current one. Either of which is enough to see at a glance who the post is by. It's only large images that I dislike.

I can see why people want large sigs but for those of us who couldn't care less about art and join a forum just to talk about the topic of that forum then the extra size is just an annoyance that eats up page space.

Ultimately it's up to the admin(s) of a forum to decide what to allow of course.

[Yushal]

I've never bothered to use a signature picture, unless someone has made me one, in which case I put it up for however long so they dont think I am being rude.

There is millions of pictures on the web I can go look at, so I dont really care to see them in a forum. Sceenshots or pictures to illustrate a point or in a graphical AAR is great, but seeing the same picture proclaiming someone's name over and over again gets tedious. Its like someone wearing jewelry or make-up to me. Its nice to look at the first time, but its really beside the point.

I know you will say well then dont look at it, lol. But personally I find them intrusive. Heheh, imagine they allow us to embed wav files somehow, so when you scroll through the posts a bunch of different jingles start playing. Can you not listen?

Another thing is that I never really care who is posting whatever it is I am reading. I never focus my attention on the name/avatar box unless I am looking for a reply from a certain person, so why would I want to see a signature file?

But surely, everyone is different.

[Shahed]

good signatures are art. As all art they have their own respective beauty to be admired. You are right some may find this beautiful while others find it intursive.

I find it beautiful. I love graphics art. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Finn]

Xiphas, no-one suggested at all that the image size should be increased, only stating that its impossible to get a really good looking signature at the file size (eg total kb) allowed and my current one is awful, its so small that it just looks messy and incoherent, not to mention its completely unnoticable at a decent resolution (eg 1280x1024 and upwards)

for example the following signature is completely legal as near as i can tell yet looks absolutely attrocious, yet there is nothing in the rules against it, it meets the filesize (the 2 segments are under 10k in total) and its the exact dimension limits.

http://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment2.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gifhttp://www.digitalprophecies.com/segment1.gif

and Yushal, when you talk with people, you normally have their appearence, what they look like, how the dress to give them some distinguishing features and make them more memorable, on the board you dont have that, the avatars cant be customised by the vast majority of the board users so the only thing is signature pictures, as sinan stated good signature pictures are art and seriously improve the eye candy level, while making it easy to differentiate people easily, for example i have been here about 3-4 months and about the only person's name i can remember is gregoshi's, on boards where signature pictures are common then i certainly find myself remembering posters far quicker, it just helps to form more of a community imo.

[Gregoshi]

Ugh My eyes That legal image assaults the eyes

Good point on the sig picture as the visual identity of a patron Finn. I know, for me, that is the case for a few people around here.

Under the current guidelines, you will need to be more selective on what aspects you want to feature in your sig picture. For example, in Finn's original version, he had the TW game logos across the bottom. You simply lose such detail when the sig is compressed/reduced to be street legal, so those items shouldn't be part of the sig picture. It is beginning to sound like we need a list of tips for creating good, but legal sig pictures. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Xiphias]

Actually I quite like that image, although I'd probably get rid of the text in the middle.

Of course, if there was an option to turn off just images in signitures then everyone would be happy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Gregoshi]

Quote[/b] (Xiphias @ May 03 2004,16:41)]Of course, if there was an option to turn off just images in signitures then everyone would be happy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
There almost is: My Control Panel -> Account Options -> Do you wish to view members signatures when reading threads? -> NO

This will completely shut off the sig rather than just any sig pictures, but if sig pictures aren't desired, why would text?

[Voigtkampf]

Compliments on wonderful sigs, Finn, I really enjoyed viewing them.

As for the limitations, I am quite happy with them, and would hate to see that the guidelines would be changed for much larger sigs. Perhaps I am not impartial, since I am in charge for the custom avatar and sig pictures, but it doesn't bother me how much big the exact sig picture is that I work with; with sizes above 500 KB the fun would be over very soon, and try to upload a thread with 25x500 KB of sigs? Thank you, but no, thank you.

On the other hand, I never had any difficulties recognizing the various posters, their individuality is guaranteed with their own specific avatars once they cross the 500 posts mark, and many of the members use customized avatars.

[Finn]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ May 04 2004,07:22)]As for the limitations, I am quite happy with them, and would hate to see that the guidelines would be changed for much larger sigs. Perhaps I am not impartial, since I am in charge for the custom avatar and sig pictures, but it doesn't bother me how much big the exact sig picture is that I work with; with sizes above 500 KB the fun would be over very soon, and try to upload a thread with 25x500 KB of sigs? Thank you, but no, thank you.
I dont think anyone mentioned sizes anywhere approaching that, hell i dont see how you could GET a pic that big unless it was full screen or stored as a bmp or something stupid.

but for example, i have yet to get a jpg that small, the picture i have now for my sig, if it was a jpg and without any compression artifacts showing, photoshop spits out a jpg of 13k, eg over the limit, it just seems impossible to get jpegs that small, 10-20k, no problem with artifacts, or 30k without artifacts

the only way i have been able to get under 10k is with gifs, and then your limited to 256 colours, and again the size is postage stamp sized.

[Shahed]

Hey Finn, I think you managed it there How did you do it ?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Graphic]

Quote[/b] (TosaInu @ May 01 2004,07:57)]Then there are also broadband users who exceed their monthly bandwidth and have to struggle with a 28k line.
This is not true. After the first viewing the sigpics would be saved as temporary internet files and upon each visit, it would load the pictures from the hard drive, not download them all over again.

Even so, you are right about the modem users. With all the sigpics and avatars, it could come out to a MB for one page of a thread to download. When I had a 28.8k modem several years ago, 1 MB was 20 minutes worth.

[TosaInu]

Hello Graphic,


Quote[/b] ]This is not true. After the first viewing the sigpics would be saved as temporary internet files and upon each visit, it would load the pictures from the hard drive, not download them all over again.

True, but depends on the settings of the cache.

[Finn]

Quote[/b] (Sinan @ May 06 2004,14:47)]Hey Finn, I think you managed it there How did you do it ?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
Seems photoshop saves some form of extra Data with jpegs that it doesnt tell you about, this extra data amounts to approximately 5k as near as i can tell :o

on consulting some of my photoshop expert friends, i used the save to web (or something) feature of photoshop which seems to write out the jpg without this extra data, it also allows you to resize it, blur it, and change the quality of the jpeg, while showing your a preview of how it looks and also saying the size of the file

i just played with the sliders for a while until i got something that looked good while being under the 10k limit

i must admit i was nudging the sliders up until it was as close to the limit as possible to reduce the artifacts, also blurring the image seemed to help out the compression a LOT, so a slight blur allowed the image to be bigger than it would be at crystal clarity

hardly perfect but it was the best i could do within the limits :)