Author Topic: Avatar sizes  (Read 8612 times)

Qhimm

  • Founder
  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • Karma: 7
    • View Profile
    • Qhimm.com
Avatar sizes
« on: 2002-05-18 21:13:47 »
I did say I would allow free dimensions on the avatar pics, but you people are pushing it. Seph, Jedimark: Shrink it down a bit, okay? You're gonna outweigh the post content if you make it any bigger.

Aaron

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2837
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://aaron-kelley.net/
Avatar sizes
« Reply #1 on: 2002-05-18 23:53:20 »
Seems to me that the avatar can be about 140 pixels wide without making that area of the table any wider, but I think the height should be limited to 75-100.  Maybe even this is too big though.  Just a thought.

Goku7

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1308
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Avatar sizes
« Reply #2 on: 2002-05-19 00:37:58 »
Speaking of size, is there gonna be a way to have the forums rescale themselves for lower resolutions?  I mean, due to my cheap monitor I'm stuck at 640x480 (I've said that before), and I've heard you guys say that you could scale practically anything in HTML.

If that's the case, then would it be possible to have a option in the user prefrences to have the site auto-scale to the resolution you select (via a drop-down box, not thru windows itself)?

Aaron

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2837
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://aaron-kelley.net/
Avatar sizes
« Reply #3 on: 2002-05-19 01:07:08 »
Due to the way the top of this forum is layed out (Qhimm's Forums logo and then the menu stuff on the right), it doesn't look like you're gonna be able to get it down to much lower than 800x600 without messing with it some.

800x600 is pretty much the minimum for most web sites now, and 1024x768 is growing to be standard.

Sorry :P but maybe Qhimm can do something.

Sephiroth 3D

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1681
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • ModCitizen 42
Avatar sizes
« Reply #4 on: 2002-05-19 03:12:12 »
My avatar's too big? Oh. personally, I like the idea of a 160x120-max avatar. Mine current one is 145x133. I'd like to keep it at least 100 on each dimention, being it down to 128x100. Could that be more acceptable Qhimm?

At least we're not getting 800x600 avatars. (knock on wood.)

Sephiroth 3D

"I don't understand..." "You don't have to understand." - Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Sephiroth 3D.com
[email protected]

Aaron

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2837
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://aaron-kelley.net/
Avatar sizes
« Reply #5 on: 2002-05-19 03:49:59 »
Heh.  At least on Internet Explorer, using an avatar 145 pixels wide increases the width of that column on the table by two pixels :-p
Anything 143 or smaller wouldn't though.

Yeah, Seph3D, yours strikes me as kinda big, but I'm not the judge :-p

Alhexx

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1899
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://www.alhexx.com
Avatar sizes
« Reply #6 on: 2002-05-19 10:26:40 »
In my Opinion, an Avatar size of 64x64 is big enough.
Let's take a look at Shinra's last post in the Valentine's Day #2 Topic: 3 lines and an avatar that makes the post three times higher than w/o avatar.

If this continues the way it goes, we'll have a problem like the other boards:

post consisting of:
    Header (Posted: 2002 ...) (height: 20 pixels)
    a 2-lines post (height: 22 pixels)
    Signature with huge pic in it (128 pixels)[/list:u]

    Please let's avoid that, okay?

     - Alhexx

Jedimark

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2065
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Avatar sizes
« Reply #7 on: 2002-05-19 11:36:33 »
Quote from: Qhimm
Jedimark: Shrink it down a bit, okay?


Okay done. But I didnt see what was wrong with it before. My location stretched longer than my avatar.

ficedula

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2179
  • Karma: 40
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ficedula.co.uk
Avatar sizes
« Reply #8 on: 2002-05-19 11:43:21 »
File size is also an issue - Seph's isn't /that/ big (10K) but if we have 10 or more people posting on a page (not unusual), you're talking >100KB of what's essentially decorations - not good. Jedimark's is now <2KB which is obviously nothing, even on a 56K modem (which we're on now ... arrrgh!) it's less than a second to download.

The whole 'expanding topics' thing is also an issue of course ;)

Alhexx

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1899
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://www.alhexx.com
Avatar sizes
« Reply #9 on: 2002-05-19 12:35:42 »
Well, my avatar is 3309 Bytes :D

 - Alhexx

The SaiNt

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1302
  • Karma: 3
    • View Profile
Avatar sizes
« Reply #10 on: 2002-05-19 12:43:28 »
The standard 60x60 ones are best :)
Slightly larger should also be okay.

The main problems with large avatars:-
1. File Size (Load times)
2. Table stretching
3. People using low-res monitors (I have to use 800x600 in college on a 14inch)
4. Avatars that take up more space than the post :P

Quote from: Goku7
If that's the case, then would it be possible to have a option in the user prefrences to have the site auto-scale to the resolution you select (via a drop-down box, not thru windows itself)?

Possible, you can even scale the text if needed. But this also means more work.

Qhimm

  • Founder
  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • Karma: 7
    • View Profile
    • Qhimm.com
Avatar sizes
« Reply #11 on: 2002-05-19 15:27:23 »
SaiNt cuts straight to the point. I used to have restrictions to 60x60 avatars for a purpose. Seph3D: Nothing wrong except it's twice as big as I'm planning the new design for. I might as well state it here: anything past 128 pixels wide will be damned for eternity. I tried removing the fixed size to allow you some artistic freedom, but having avatars larger than your posts is *not* artistic.

I will try out some avatar sizes with the new design, and will in time set a maximum size for them. My current opinions on the matter is:

  • Absolutely not bigger than, say 128x96. Remember, you were once happy with 60x60. :)
  • Content-rich avatars draw attention from the posts, keep avatars simple. Seph has the right idea, but that grey border kind of ruins the beauty. I haven't seen anyone directly in violation of this yet, thankfully.
  • Users with poorly chosen avatars will be warned, and ultimately have their custom avatar functionality blocked.
  • Admin's/moderator's decision is law.[/list:u]

    More info to follow on the matter...

Sephiroth 3D

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1681
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • ModCitizen 42
Avatar sizes
« Reply #12 on: 2002-05-19 20:27:06 »
Quote from: Qhimm
Seph has the right idea, but that grey border kind of ruins the beauty.


I can't help it if your browser doesn't properly support 32-bit PNG files. NS6 runs them perfectly.

Well, I'll shrink mine down to the earlier stated 128x100. I'll update it soon.

Edit: Wow! How did I manage THAT?! Apparently, my larger avater is, byte-wise, smaller that the 128x100 version! I've done multiple attemps to make it smaller, but the 128 version is always larger in bytes than my larger avatar. Meaning: 145x133 = 10.x kb. 128x100 = 12.x kb.

Still want me to use the smaller one?

Oh, I've removed the useless pixels in my current-sized one, so it's smaller in pixels & in bytes, But I'm still 142x113 at 9.x kb

Sephiroth 3D

"I don't understand..." "You don't have to understand." - Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Sephiroth 3D.com
[email protected]

ficedula

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2179
  • Karma: 40
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ficedula.co.uk
Avatar sizes
« Reply #13 on: 2002-05-19 21:46:49 »
Well ... I shrank the image to the 128 pixels size myself in Photoimpact, and while it didn't shave much off the size, it certainly wasn't bigger!

I also note that I could convert it to a transparent GIF which was half the size and didn't look any different (while maintaining the transparency). While GIF isn't often perfect, due to the 256 colour limit, on an image this small it doesn't use enough colour variation to actually need 32-bit colours. As an additional benefit, it works fine in both Mozilla and IE based browsers...

ShinRa Inc

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 416
  • Karma: 0
  • The Ascension of the Ordinary Man
    • View Profile
    • http://shinrainc.org
Avatar sizes
« Reply #14 on: 2002-05-19 22:59:14 »
Quote
I can't help it if your browser doesn't properly support 32-bit PNG files. NS6 runs them perfectly.


Since it doesn't seem many people use NS6, you can help by converting it to a GIF....   :roll: ::innocent whistle.  flee.::

Caddberry

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://animenfo.com/
Avatar sizes
« Reply #15 on: 2002-05-20 03:57:33 »
I think avatars rock.. personally i do.. i havent messed with the idea.. i probably will soon.. or something.. but some of those sites out there. .you cant even read the freakin text on the page.. the avatars and signature files are hideous.. its like banner ads right in the posts.. thats awful.. i couldnt read that crap..

Qhimm

  • Founder
  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • Karma: 7
    • View Profile
    • Qhimm.com
Avatar sizes
« Reply #16 on: 2002-05-20 09:05:40 »
Speaking of innocent whistles, why are you back at the old mega-sized avatar, Shinra? And as a strictly personal opinion, I liked the white one better, blended in better with the page colors.

Seph: I can't help but remember the old standards (which I deactivated). Not only did they set 60x60 as a maximum size, they also have a 6kB file size limit. I'm not bashing you for this or anything, but IMO there was no reason to make your new avatar so much bigger than the old one. You could easily keep that avatar at 96x64 and people would still see the motif just as clearly. Why the need to stretch the boundaries of netiquette?

As for the NS6 issue, I know it looks good there, and with only the masamune tip on the right the width of the avatar doesn't feel that intrusive. But it's much more obvious and has a christ-that's-big feel to it in other browsers. I'm not going to force you to change the image type (unless others complain), but the size is big, no getting around it. Just because I say it's okay for now to use larger avatars, you don't have to push it to the limits.

No hard feelings for this, I hope? Anyone? I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter, I prefer not to be portrayed as the evil dictator of the board  :wink:

Sephiroth 3D

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1681
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • ModCitizen 42
Avatar sizes
« Reply #17 on: 2002-05-20 18:50:39 »
I was going more for a Wow... with the size, but I'm willing to shrink it. I just wanted to point out that when I shrank it, the file size grew for some reason. I just wanted to get your opinon of weither or not I should use the smaller, yet bigger, image.

Sephiroth 3D

"I don't understand..." "You don't have to understand." - Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Sephiroth 3D.com
[email protected]

ficedula

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2179
  • Karma: 40
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ficedula.co.uk
Avatar sizes
« Reply #18 on: 2002-05-20 18:55:23 »
Perhaps you should use a different piece of software? I shrank it without it getting any bigger...

eerrrr

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1022
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Avatar sizes
« Reply #19 on: 2002-05-20 19:27:45 »
Seph: Just wondering, what's the problem with GIFs? I know they're not as good as the PNG format, but converting your image to GIF wouldn't make that much of a quality difference. In IE 5.01 (I couldn't be bothered to upgrade after my last format) the image has a huge brown border, not a grey one like everyone else seems to have. So for some users the avatar will stand out even more, and there are WAY more IE users than NS users.
Ok, I tried a GIF conversion:


I can't see any quality difference between this 4Kb GIF and you're 9Kb PNG.

Hey, I'm not trying to have a go at you, I just think it would look better. :wink:

Aaron

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 2837
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://aaron-kelley.net/
Avatar sizes
« Reply #20 on: 2002-05-20 22:15:06 »
I think the only real difference is the way PNG handles transparency around the edges (so it looks good no matter what background it's on, IF you are using Netscape 6 - and this is what Seph3D likes).  Not to mention that GIF is limited to 256 colors.  However, that GIF does look very good.

ShinRa Inc

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 416
  • Karma: 0
  • The Ascension of the Ordinary Man
    • View Profile
    • http://shinrainc.org
Avatar sizes
« Reply #21 on: 2002-05-21 01:39:19 »
Uh...  This avatar isn't the insanely huge file I had when the forums got the refit, if that's what you're talking about.  That was the ShinRa, Inc. Indoctrination Video.  This one I'd created it as a background for the ShinRa battle sprite graphics, and did a quick resize of it for the avatar, planning on doing more work on it the next day....but then Seph and I got into our little Graphics War...

 @[email protected]  

Yeah, It doesn't blend well.  Too dark, for starters.  I should be able to get to it soon.... :roll:

J*** H*******

  • Guest
Avatar sizes
« Reply #22 on: 2002-05-21 03:52:36 »
Message

Sephiroth 3D

  • No life
  • *
  • Posts: 1681
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • ModCitizen 42
Avatar sizes
« Reply #23 on: 2002-05-21 04:20:25 »
Quote from: Jari Huttunen

Seph: Smaller is better. This one sticks out. IMHO.


That's one of the things I like about it! It sticks out!

Your probably right about that bicubic thing, cause when I set it to NN, the size dropped, but it had a noticable effect on the image. Gonna try re-rendering at the smaller size....

Well... It's smaller in size (128x96, as Qhimm wanted) But it's still hovering around the 10kb zone. Not too bad, so I'm just gonna leave it as it is.

Sephiroth 3D

"I don't understand..." "You don't have to understand." - Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Sephiroth 3D.com
[email protected]

ShinRa Inc

  • Insane poster
  • *
  • Posts: 416
  • Karma: 0
  • The Ascension of the Ordinary Man
    • View Profile
    • http://shinrainc.org
Avatar sizes
« Reply #24 on: 2002-05-21 05:20:07 »
For some reason, when I try and export images from the decrepit and barely functional version of Adobe PhotoDeluxe 1.0 to JPEG format, they're massively bloated.  I think it saves the different layers as seperate JPEGs, and then mashes them together, or something similarly horrendously inefficient.  I usually run graphics through MSPaint or AOL, or any kind of program that'll convert images to get a more reasonable file siaze....but like I said, I hadn't meant for that one to last this long... -.-

Well, maybe this'll make people happy...

...or give them the willies.