Signature Images Sizes

[rickmastfan67]

Ok, I've held my tongue for awhile on this, but it's starting to get out of hand IMO.  There are a several people out there (names withheld) that have signature images that are OVER 500k and that's killing me on dial-up (One person even has one that is OVER 1MB!!).  I mean, I was just in a thread trying to see the images that where posted for the project and there are two people in that thread with 500k+ Signature images that were slowing down the whole thread.  I waited over 8 minutes to try to get the whole thread to load and I just gave up because of those signature images.

Is there anybody else out there having this problem???  I honestly think there should be a file size limit on the signature images of 100k max.  I think that would be more than fair IMO.  At least I could personally handle that on Dial-up that only connects @ a max of 26.4Kbps.

Does anybody else agree with me on this?

[dedgren]

Yup.  I do.

I think the staff will be having a discussion about this.


David

[XiahouDun]

I can throw in my experiences with signatures it if helps any. A site I mod allows 500x500 pixels and 100k, and people can work in plenty of things in that area. With the lower allowed image sizes here, 100k signatures really isn't hard to achieve, and still leaves room for smaller gif images to be placed in sigs too. (sorry if I'm sticking my nose in site policy )

[M4346]

I think the current measures imposed are more than restrictive, but that's just my own personal opinion. Alternatively you can always turn off 'show signatures' in your personal options.

[callagrafx]

I think the current measures imposed are more than restrictive, but that's just my own personal opinion. Alternatively you can always turn off 'show signatures' in your personal options.

Not necessarily...A large signature not only takes up site bandwidth and database space, but also makes the viewable area that much less.  Imagine a page of posts where everyone's signature (and not just the image) is 3x greater than the size of the post made...you'd be scrolling forever.  A signature is a footnote, not a billboard.

[vester]

If I remember right the max size of signatur images is 300x50px, just like the size of one in Call's signatur

[RippleJet]

I think we might as well speak out that it's the animated signature images of NHP members that are the big ones.

M4346 and Callagrafx both have the same image size, measured in pixels; 300×50.
However, they still have quite a difference in size;
M4348's signature image is 395,380 bytes, whereas the one by Callagraphx is 8,853 bytes.

Maybe an addition to the rules restricting the size of the signature images in kB should be added as well...

For the time being, I would indeed recommend anybody using dial-up to select the options:
      Don't show other users' avatars
      Don't show other users' signatures
in the Look and Layout Preferences under his/her Profile.

[jplumbley]

To be honest, I have been animated since December and noone has complained about it until recently.

IMO, if your on dial-up you might as well have those options for sigs and avatars turned off anyways.  The least number of pictures to download the better.  The step up from dial-up, is Cable/DSL in which case you are getting anywhere between 100 to 500 kbs most of the time.  I understand there are some users on dial-up but they should also be aware that there connection is below the average person's connection nowadays.  I am truely sorry, but there are options that can make the page load faster which have been stated by Ripplejet.

The important content of the site is in the messages themselves not in the signature's anyways.  There is a choice out there for people to use to hide the sigs and avatars.

A large signature not only takes up site bandwidth and database space,

Cal, the signature's of NHP are hosted off site and are linked into the signatures.  I did not realize this added to the useage of the site bandwidth.  I have uploaded my Avatar to the site, but that is the only thing uploaded directly to the site.

[jeronij]

We can not restric the size to these images only, we should restrict all the images in the site to do this  . This is technically not doable at the moment.

For dial-up users, I'd suggest to follow Ripplejet instructions above, to minimize the graphic load of the pages. This is the reason for these options to exist  . Oh, and upgrade your connection as soon as possible, you will enjoy the internet much better  .

It is up to the members to keep the images under the site allowed dimensions (300 pixels widht x 50 pixels height) as stated in the rules, and we will also discuss if it is possible to limit the "weight" of the pictures. This is however really difficult to control, since all the images are hosted off site. They dont use much SC4D bandwith    .

I dont think more discussion is necessary about this at the moment. We will keep you informed of any news 

[rickmastfan67]

Well, the reason I keep the signatures/avatars online is because it's a force of habit.  I'm an Admin at 2 NASCAR sites and a mod at another, so I have to keep them on there to make sure nobody's putting anything that's in bad taste in their signatures/avatars.

But, if you just eliminate the fading in and out from an image in the signature, you can drop the file sizes down, say 90%.  For instance Jason, your signature had already loaded on my PC, so I saved a copy to my desktop.  Then I opened it up in my Animated Image editor.  I then eliminated all of the fading in and out and now I'm just down to the base 4 image parts.  Here's the result: (I also upped the show time for each separate image up to 3 seconds from 1.5 to counteract the elimination of the fading)



Now, the here's the image size comparison below with and without the fading:
Original: 759,894 bytes
Tweaked: 29,183 bytes

So, you see, it isn't that hard to get down to under 100k.  Just eliminate the fade and you good to go.

[M4346]

Cal I was not criticizing the restrictions on signature size, I actually meant that I think it is more than adequate.
And as I initially suggested I believe that if you do have problem or know that your connection does not allow for images to be displayed practically speaking, then turn the feature off.

Although I do understand the concerns re: NHP signatures and the matter is being discussed. 

[Madeira aka Constantina]

i think the signatures system is okay to my opinion. just as long it is at a reasonable size, it will be okay.

[callagrafx]

Cal, the signature's of NHP are hosted off site and are linked into the signatures.  I did not realize this added to the useage of the site bandwidth.

since all the images are hosted off site. They dont use much SC4D bandwith

It adds a little, but not as much as would a direct image call from the Devotion servers.  The time it takes for a specific page to render also eats at server resources (more calls to the database to display the page = increase in bandwidth and slower page display) and if the images are big in filesize, the more calls it makes.  Sorry, it's not as resource hungry as my previous post may have led you to believe but there is a drain.

[Andreas]

But, if you just eliminate the fading in and out from an image in the signature, you can drop the file sizes down, say 90%.  For instance Jason, your signature had already loaded on my PC, so I saved a copy to my desktop.  Then I opened it up in my Animated Image editor.  I then eliminated all of the fading in and out and now I'm just down to the base 4 image parts.  Here's the result: (I also upped the show time for each separate image up to 3 seconds from 1.5 to counteract the elimination of the fading)

Well, I must admit that I hate animated pics that suddenly show another frame, so the smooth transition is somewhat nice. Maybe one should do that with a Flash animator, since those are much smaller than animated GIFs.

Generally speaking, I'd also vote for a reasonable limit, both in pixel size and file size. Luckily, in most cases you only need to load the image once, and if it's a frequent poster, it should stay in your browser cache and got loaded from there whenever you encounter another post from this user.

[Kitsune]

It is up to the members to keep the images under the site allowed dimensions (300 pixels widht x 50 pixels height) as stated in the rules, and we will also discuss if it is possible to limit the "weight" of the pictures. This is however really difficult to control, since all the images are hosted off site. They dont use much SC4D bandwith    .

So if wanted to use something larger, but its hosted off site, is that allowed? Maybe there should be two rules, one for on-site hosted sigs, and one for off-site hosted sigs?

[thundercrack83]

So if wanted to use something larger, but its hosted off site, is that allowed? Maybe there should be two rules, one for on-site hosted sigs, and one for off-site hosted sigs?

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that all signature pictures, regardless of where they are hosted, should be no more than 300 x 50.

As for changing the signature rules, I do empathize with the problem those with a dial-up connection are having, but I think the steps pointed out by RippleJet should suffice, rather than an amendment to the rules, unless there are a lot of people out there with dial-up connections. I'm not sure and, again, I may be wrong, but I would wager that there are more people here with high-speed connections than dial-up at this point.

[beskhu3epnm]

NHP has taken this concern to heart, and I have re-designed the team signature to be more dial-up friendly. The frames now go faster, and there are less things to advertise.

Please give our members some time to gradually switch over.