Honestly, this thread serves no purpose. Sig size limits were increased not to long ago. No one is stoping you guys from making them as big as you want, you just can't use them as your current. There isn't gonna be another increase.
Yes, please increase teh sig size limit
Nope, sig size limits fine as is.
Honestly, this thread serves no purpose. Sig size limits were increased not to long ago. No one is stoping you guys from making them as big as you want, you just can't use them as your current. There isn't gonna be another increase.
For all you awesome people, it's just Phoenix. The numbers are just the amount of times people misspell it.
Argh!! This thread isn't about increasing the Signatures Dimensions, its role is to increase the KB Limit from 100 kb, PNG Signatures dimensions 400x100 can't be saved in PNG form with that size limit.....=S
Actually they can. My current sig is PNG and is 78 KB, which is about 8 KB bigger than its JPG (max quality) counterpart. I guess they get bigger if the complexity increases.
1) Any time a thread like this shows up, it is abruptly shut down.
2) If everyone had 200 kb sigs, then a single page could cost over 2 mb of bandwidth.
3) Nobody should be putting PNG files on the web anyway, because 50% of the viewing audience won't even be able to see them. If you guys actually go and save your jpegs at high enough quality, you'll never notice a flaw in image quality. Transparencies should no longer be an issue either, because everybody's background colors are the same. Just make the bg of your canvas the same as the bg of the forum.
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
don't complain about the things you don't have, but rather be happy with the things that you have that the others don't have. seriously, i understand that people aren't happy knowing they can do more with their talent with sigs or whatever, but that shouldn't be a huge deal. as some already said, they've increased the sig size not so long ago, now don't make them want to take that away from us too, now. i've seen those forums that don't allow sigs or avatars, it's a pain to see that and i wouldn't want the same to happen to here as well.
note: accidently voted for yes.
Signature by Lucifus
She knows what you did last summer..
------------私はコピーX 及びSimca が空を征服することを信じる------------
assertn, im sure you save your renders in max as png also, instead of jpg, the blurring is just insane when using jpg, no matter what the quality
http://www.schelterstudios.com/storage/alien/
Feel free to point out any insane blurring
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
ok maybe "insane" is to big a word, but i bet those pics have been blurred a bit too ( nice alien btw)
but tell me honestly ( and plz look at the pics carefully), the blurring is pretty obvious in this render right?:
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/dar...llagepose3.png
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/dar...llagepose3.jpg
( max 8 )
You two stop using renders, I really can't notice any difference with renders, try a real sig and see how much bullshyt saving as JPG turns it into.
@Assertnfailure, There should be *absolutly* no one who can't handle 2 mbs on Gotwoot. Because we all download tons and tons of bittorrent files, meaning we all probably have a kick ass connection. And I doubt increasing the Sig Size from 100 kb to 120 kb would kill the bandwidth anyway.
And heres another suggestion for you guys, How about cutting the Sig Dimensions from 400x100 to 380x120 then?
Well, Honestly I can only tell a minimal difference between these two when saved as 12 on quality but look at the size, the png is still smaller in terms of size and the png is still better quality(barely)
PNG
60kb
Jpeg:
73kb
I wouldn't mind having the space, just for expandibilty options, but if we don't get it, I won't lose any sleep over it.
Last edited by IFHTT; Fri, 03-17-2006 at 10:48 PM.
How big is teh JPG at 12?
73kb, 13kb more than the same png...
edit: Here is another
PNG:
76kb
Jpeg:
89kb...
Interesting 13kb again...
Last edited by IFHTT; Fri, 03-17-2006 at 11:03 PM.
I voted no simply because as PSJ stated earlier, we recently had an increase in sig size from 400x80 to 400x100. I don't really see the admins changing it so soon once again. Bigger usually is better, but i think the current size is good enough as it is.
I voted keep it the same since i really don't have a problem with the current size. I live by if it is not broken then do not fix it. Also it saves on bandwidth when i am raping my connection downloading anime.
Interesting point....so I assume your jpeg saves are at full quality, darkshadow?
Still would never had noticed the difference if you hadn't emphasized it though.
IFingHateTonTon: Naturally, level 12 is above and beyond the the level that will get you max quality. Filesizes increase exponentially every level you increase it, so much that you can probably knock that down by 50% by just going to level 10. I'd like to meet the guy that can notice a difference between 10 and 12, anyway.
The Point of web graphics isn't to go all out for quality, but to bring out the fullest quality while being bandwidth-conscious about it. Whether or not I CAN download 2 mb or not is irrelevant. I don't WANT to have to download 2 mb. To have to wait 10 times longer for a discussion forum to load because of little graphical accents that hold no importance to the page is uneccessary.
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
I can. There's a slight discoloration/distortion. I have some'at special eyes that allow me to notice miniscule details as such.Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
Voted no. 400x100 is fine, so why increase? I've been at forums with 500x150 and larger, and the load time is unbearable. Larger sizes do open possibilities, but it's not really worth it imo.
master_me + dA = <3
Yeah I see what you're saying. I just made those jpegs for reference, I am not really concerned whether or not we get the space, because honestly this forum is probably the fastest loading forum that I visit, which is nice.
Edit Since I am a reference kinda guy, I made these reference jpegs.
Saved at 10, 60kb:
Get a good look because next comes the 12
Saved at 12, 86kb:
I can only see very slight discoloration but other than that, no difference. Though I am on an lcd, and that may be why. The png was 86kb also. Assertn is right as far as I can tell, though let me reiterate that I am on an lcd. If you can tell a difference say so.
Last edited by IFHTT; Sun, 03-19-2006 at 12:57 AM.
I'm convinced that any difference in quality is only noticeable because you're trying to find a difference.
I'm on an LCD but I can't tell the difference between those two pics.
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
Yeah, you start looking too hard and your mind will start making shit up too.
Ironically the one that I see the discoloration, and its not even really discoloration, just a little less depth of color, is the one saved at 12. Then again it may not even be there.
I don't really see a difference either. I usually save my jpg's at the highest quality setting, but I've still never had a sig that was over 100k. I'm pretty happy with the limits right now, and I don't feel like I'm restricted by them. Also, whenever I visit my parents I'm stuck using crappy dial-up internet, so I appreciate the faster loading times. I voted to keep it the same.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
