Forum - View topichuge avitars
|
|
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
madaudet03
 Posts: 40 Location: USA |
|
||
|
what is the deal is it my browser settings? or a problem with the program? some of the members avitars are normal sized and others are huge i wouldn't care but it scrunches up the text window on peoples posts making them difficult to read is there a setting i'm missing ?
|
|||
|
|||
Animefreak08
 Posts: 882 Location: Michigan ftw. |
|
||
|
What is your screen resolution?
|
|||
|
|||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10539 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
||
|
Avatar are limited to 80x80 here, so I don't think anyone's is huge. Who's avatar in particular are you talking about?
|
|||
|
|||
|
madaudet03
Posts: 40 Location: USA |
|
||
|
it seems only to be the ramblin wreck and dark hunger today
screen res is 1024x768 |
|||
|
|||
|
Alexiel
Posts: 7 Location: A decently clean college dorm room |
|
||
That may be true, but they are also limited to no more than 6k. I find this highly troublesome for people like me who identify with their avatars on any particular board. I can deal with the 80x80 limitation, but even with that, I cannot find a single picture that I can make an avatar of because I have to make the picture less than 40x40 for it to reach 6k, which at that point, is utterly pointless. Could you please consider changing this limitation? |
|||
|
|||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9903 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
||
If you can change image size, you should be able to increase JPEG compression ratio. A non-compressed, true-color, information-free 80 x 80 bitmap is 19200 bytes (three bytes per pixel). Depending on the complexity of your image, a compression factor 10 (96% in ACDSee) with progressive option turned on should reduce the file size below 6 KB without noticeable loss of quality. |
|||
|
|||
|
Alexiel
Posts: 7 Location: A decently clean college dorm room |
|
||
|
I attempted to make the image smaller and changing it to the Progressive state, but even that did not work (the quality had to be set down to the Lowest setting). Tried saving it to bmp format, and that did nothing.
I don't mean to be a pest, but putting up an avatar for a message board shouldn't take so much effort in my opinion. I'll take any more helpful suggestions on what I could do, but just making the restriction not so strict would save alot of people who can't use Photoshop well (me being one of those people) a world of frustration. |
|||
|
|||
littlegreenwolf
 Posts: 4796 Location: Seattle, WA |
|
||
|
Alexiel: Have you tried saving to png? I also don't like th 6kb limit to the avatars, but with photoshop I discovered saving it to this format help a ton. Also, if you do use photoshop, try saving the avatar with the "save to web" option. It lets you controll the quality, and gets you the best quality with the smallest size.
But like you said, you don't use photoshop. However, I do know that some other image editing programs have a feature similar to this. |
|||
|
|||
radicaledward
 Posts: 776 |
|
||
|
I concur - PNG is a much better format for some of the media that people commonly use JPEG compression for. The long story short is that you should use JPEG for photos (which is what it was originally designed for) and compression such as PNG for graphics that are along the lines of anime or manga images.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alexiel
Posts: 7 Location: A decently clean college dorm room |
|
||
|
Thank you, both of you. I do use Photoshop, but I don't know the ins and outs of it. I know how to make my own basic avatars, but matters of compression and retaining visual properties I attempt to stay aware of, but am not knowledgable in.
I will try the png format. I did not try it before because I thought that png format actually increased the file size of the image, but made it very high quality. I must have been mistaken then. |
|||
|
|||
|
radicaledward
Posts: 776 |
|
||
|
Well you are correct, PNG can make bigger files, but it all depends on what you are trying to save. If you are saving a complex image with lots of color changing then it will be a bigger file because of how the PNG algorithm works. Where as in that case JPEG would be the better way to go.
In general you should use PNG for images that have lots of solid color sections, GIF for smaller images that have a good number of different colors, but that are not photos, and JPEG for images that were originally photos. |
|||
|
|||
|
echocharlie
Posts: 55 |
|
||
|
I've always heard that PNG is a royalty-free image compression algorithm. JPG is owned by someone and people have to pay money in order to use this algorithm in commercial products.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tempest
I Run this place. ANN Publisher Posts: 10539 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
||
Yes, this is true. Recently the owners of the compression algorhythm ('672 compression patent') used by JPEG decided to start making software vendors pay a royalty fee for including it in their software. The company in question had acquired the patent after buying another company, and decided that after 20 years of free use, to charge royalties for JPEG. According to the JPEG homepage, this issue appears to not be resolved, but the company in question (Forgent Networks) has sued a lot of companies, and appears to be winning many of those lawsuits. The JPEG 2000 standard uses several private patents, but the owners of these patents have all signed agreements to make them available for use in Jpeg 2000 royalty free. Compuserve owns and developped the Gif format based on the LZW compression back in the 80s. The owners of the LZW algorhythm decided to start charging royalties back in 1995, so gif isn't free either. PNG is similar to GIF but better, and free. In any case where you'd use gif, you're better off using PNG (PNG's not Gif is what the name actually means, although for the sake of being respectable, it is also referred to as Portanble Network Graphics). As stated before, PNG and Gif are better for drawings, JPEG is better for photos. In all cases, the end user isn't responsible for any of this (except that you may pay a larger price to buy image software). -t |
|||
|
|||
|
echocharlie
Posts: 55 |
|
||
Not just software, but hardware also. Digital cameras that natively store in JPG format have to pay the royalties, and as a result manufacturers have to charge higher prices for the product. |
|||
|
|||
goatbear
 Posts: 2 Location: USA |
|
||
this did the trick. for anyone using photoshop do this -- i tried saving in a bunch of different formats (saving as png actually made it larger) but i could never get under about 6.5 kb until i used this feature. hopefully my avatar will show up next to this post *crosses fingers* |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group