Sig Size Limit

[Lucifus]

Hey all hoping some Gotwoot admins are reading. I'm prety sure the Signature size limit was above 100 kb before the change over.

I'm posting this thread to request that the sig limit be changed to 200 kb, because, all my signatures saved in PNG form are about 117 kb, and has to be saved as JPG to work on Gotwoots forums, and this severly reduces the quality of the sigs I've made.

Anyway, I'm making a poll to see if anyone else feels this way, if so, please vote for the change, and could the admins please change the sig limit. =)

EDIT: BoC poses a great idea, please vote also for the increase of the dimensions to 400x120 =)

[xDarkMaster]

Well, bigger is better and it can't hurt so I agree.

[Board of Command]

I voted yes, not just for the filesize but also for dimensions possibly. I'd like to see a 400x120 or so dimension limit because that proportion opens up many more options.

[xDarkMaster]

I also totally agree w. BoC. With the new board set-up the sigs can be bigger and not cause as much clutter as they would have in the old boards.

[Lucifus]

In total agreement with Board of command, I could do so much better with my renders.

[IFHTT]

I voted yes as well, even just small amount like 20 pixels allows for much more expansion with using renders. I find that alot of the times that larger renders are smashed or not enough of the render can be displayed... If we don't get it, I'll live, but it would be nice.

[Lucifus]

All votes in favor of change so far.

[masamuneehs]

I haven't decided what to vote for yet, and here's why I'm hung up:

the problem with taller sigs is that it really spaces out posts, making pages longer, adding 20% more bandwith usage per post. If you even look at this topic you'll see what I'm talking about. I can barely fit two entire posts (complete with time/date and 'On/Off' and 'Quote' functions) on my screen at one time. We're talking about 1-4 line posts.

The problem with bigger sigs is that the also tend to 'dominate' the forum because they're simply bigger and more attractive than alot of posts. The main thing in a person's post should be their words, not their sig.

On the other hand, I do like the idea of having more room to work with for sigs and all that....

[LaZie]

I voted yes, but I don't really need sigs to be larger as I prefer it to be smaller than huge. As long as I have the option to have it larger to fit my needs. :p

[FrogKing]

I haven't voted yet, but I am leaning toward no. In some forums, sig size has gotten WAY out of hand. It is way too busy at the bottom of each post. Some have little clubs, cartoons, and the sigs become stacked and of varying size. I don't know if I am looking at a screen shot of some sort or a sig. I kinda like how everyone has a sig that is just that a sig. Nothing too fancy, just simple.

edit: Oh, yeah I agree with masamuneehs!

[Board of Command]

That's a whole different case. We're just talking about increasing the filesize limit or the dimensions limit. Having multiple banners with animation and such is indeed out of hand but that's not what you're voting on here.

[FrogKing]

I realize that, but increase a little here add a second banner there....I think they are good right now. I am impressed with what people can come up with on the limited canvas.

[Board of Command]

Again, 20 pixels is very different from 2 banners... Yes, people have adapted and created some very impressive stuff using the current dimensions, but I'm sure we'll see much better looking stuff if we have an extra 20 pixels to work with. Look at how much the sigs have improved since the limit went from 400x80 to 400x100. I do realize that 400x80 was kinda absurb, but like now, people back then adapted to that and created a lot of good stuff. I'm not saying 400x100 is bad, I'm just saying it could be improved.

The concern is like masamuneehs pointed out, the forum becomes too graphic for its own good. The sig size is not the reason for why you can only see 2 posts at a time; that's caused by the profile stuff on the left. Even if I don't have anything in my signature field, my post still takes up the same amout of space. If you look at FrogKing's post, he probably has the smallest profile size possible, yet the sig banner still doesn't reach the bottom of his post area. There is a good 30 pixels unused under every sig banner (except mine of course, but that can be fixed) so I don't think it would hurt much to up the limit a bit. Also, bandwidth shouldn't be much of a problem nowadays because we're only talking about 10 to 20 KB more per image.

[Kraco]

I voted no, because I'm a lousy sig artist, and probably would have no use for the extra space.

And no, I'm not particularly selfish (or am I?).

[Munsu]

Why is this thread even here? If anything it should be in the Suggestions Forum. This thread being here won't accomplish much, since most admins don't even step in to the fanart section.

[PSJ]

I voted no. The sig size was increased not long ago if it is increased again now people will be satisfied for a couple of months and then want another resize.

It is simlpy unecessary to resize the sig dimensions.

About the 100kb limit, is there anyone exept Lucifus that got the problem of not being able to make their sigs below 100kb in PNG? Until there are more people that got the same problem nothing is gonna happen on that either.

This is a losing battle.

[Psyke]

I vote "no" as well. I'm an avid sig maker as well, and I think 400 x 100 is enough for people to work on. :)

[darkshadow]

yes, cause i make my sigs pretty big:
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/darkshadow/kin2.png
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/darkshadow/sigichi.png
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/darkshadow/sigb.png

just to show a few

and i the extra bandwidth doesnt matter with my 8.2mbps ( soon 20mbps) connection :P

[Lucifus]

The vote is for the increase of the Sig Size limit, cause the JPG Quality sucks. 20 Kb more on a sig I doubt would affect Dial Up. I'm okay if we don't get teh 400x120, but it would give us alot of room for improvement.

Just please stop voting no for the SIg Size limit....

[darkshadow]

my sigs are always png, cause yeah jpg sux, really blurry mess

[Phoenix20578]

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.

[Lucifus]

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

[Board of Command]

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.

[Assertn]

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.

[RedX1z]

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.

[darkshadow]

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

[Assertn]

http://www.schelterstudios.com/storage/alien/

Feel free to point out any insane blurring

[darkshadow]

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/darkshadow/collagepose3.png
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/darkshadow/collagepose3.jpg
( max 8 )

[Lucifus]

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?

[IFHTT]

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
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/habighk/sig4.png
60kb

Jpeg:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/habighk/sig4copy.jpg
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.

[Lucifus]

How big is teh JPG at 12?

[IFHTT]

73kb, 13kb more than the same png...

edit: Here is another

PNG:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/habighk/sig1.png
76kb

Jpeg:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/habighk/sig1copy.jpg
89kb...

Interesting 13kb again...

[Splash!]

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.

[woofcat]

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.

[Assertn]

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.

[master_me]

I'd like to meet the guy that can notice a difference between 10 and 12, anyway.

I can. There's a slight discoloration/distortion. I have some'at special eyes that allow me to notice miniscule details as such.


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.

[IFHTT]

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:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/habighk/Untitled-11-3.jpg
Get a good look because next comes the 12

Saved at 12, 86kb:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/habighk/Untitled-11-32.jpg

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.

[Assertn]

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.

[IFHTT]

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.

[KitKat]

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.

[masamuneehs]

for the record, voted no.

I also feel like in a perfect world everyone could have sigs as HQ as they want, but because some people connect with slow ISPs and that I've never even come close to breaking the limit on file size for sigs, I really can't say I have any personal reason to vote Yes. I also don't really want to wait longer for forums to load while I'm DLing anime and other stuff with my connection.

[suckitdry]

Bigger sigs can not have any down side. They should be animated and as big as we want!

[PSJ]

Yea that's very smart suckitdry, make them as big as possible so they can eat the bandwidth as fast as possible.

It's not practical with big sigs, you have to scroll through more sigs than posts in topics if they get bigger, if you want to display huge ass sigs and stuff then i suggest you find a nice graphics forum to join. Sigs are not even important, what you write is important.

This thread shouldn't even exist.

[darkshadow]

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.......

yes i saved them at max quality, but the blurring seems less obvious with different kind of renders, dont know why though

[master_me]

If we're talking about download time, that's file size we're talking about. I say, no limits as far as dimensions go, (so long as it's reasonable/doesn't stretch the screen) but we keep the file size limits the same.

[Zidarri the Exile]

They take up bandwith, and all, but really, 400px x 100px is a bit small. 500px x 150px isn't much bigger.

I voted yes.