Raise signature size limit

[Mussels]

While i understand the goal of keeping sigs small to save bandwidth and prevent lag, i really would like it increased a little. its very hard when you get a great sig made, and its got to be compressed so heavily that it goes blurry and stops looking good.

Not asking for something ridiculous here, just a small increase.

Current size is around 19KB i beleive, i'd like that raised to the 30-50KB range.

Any comments?

edit: as requested a poll has been added, with the most popular options.

Current file size is 19KB for reference. The size options presented are "less than" so that <100KB means "i'd like a raise in filesize, but no more than 100KB max"

 

[Kursah]

With most people using higher speed connections these days (those limited by choice, by availability or don't work/pay for their own internet excluded) I don't see a problem with it myself.

 

[Mussels]

admittedly i dont want a large increase, or animated sigs allowed - i dont want to wait 30 seconds to load every page just because i'm on a different continent to the servers, but i definately want to be able to see less compression on peoples sigs. it'd stop the problems with people linking high res remote sigs as well.

 

[Triprift]

I agree with you Mussels keep the 500 x 100 max but that could make things a little easier.

 

[cdawall]

i'm fine with the 19K just make the image smaller there is a whole thread on how to compress it and there are a couple if sigs i fixed to fit with in the 19K limit stil floating around (the PS3 clubhouse for example)

 

[RadeonX2]

I agree 50KB max size see my sig it has rough edges proving that compressing destroys image quality.

 

[Binge]

mine is large and obnoxious... 8.6kb

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I think dimensions (height/width) are more of a factor than size (bytes). I really don't like forums that are broken by gigantic signature pictures. Not to mention how the page jumps down as they load...

Meh. I'd be all for no sig pics, TBH. Text can do the same thing with less space.

 

[Pinchy]

I think dimensions (height/width) are more of a factor than size (bytes). I really don't like forums that are broken by gigantic signature pictures. Not to mention how the page jumps down as they load...

Meh. I'd be all for no sig pics, TBH. Text can do the same thing with less space.

Lol, I agree. They are fine as it is IMO.

 

[Mussels]

i definately dont want a dimensions increase. just a small increase in file size (KBytes).

 

[RadeonX2]

i definately dont want a dimensions increase. just a small increase in file size (KBytes).

I agree dimensions are ok just a small file size increase to preserve image quality

 

[btarunr]

Just a personal opinion: I don't find much of a quality loss between a 30~50 KB image, and that which is compressed within 19.5 KB.

 

[3870x2]

While i understand the goal of keeping sigs small to save bandwidth and prevent lag, i really would like it increased a little. its very hard when you get a great sig made, and its got to be compressed so heavily that it goes blurry and stops looking good.

Not asking for something ridiculous here, just a small increase.

Current size is around 19KB i beleive, i'd like that raised to the 30-50KB range.

Any comments?

If you have a good photo editing program the compression differences will be minimal.
IE Photoshop.
Also, remember that although it will be 50kb with a sig, that sig will repeat (IE not redownload) each time that person posts again, so it shouldnt be that horrible of a change.
Speaking of which mussels i like your sig, even through compression it still looks pretty tight.

 

[newtekie1]

I like the file limit the way it is, 19KB is more than enough for 500x100 image. Done correctly, the compression should show little to no IQ loss.

 

[3870x2]

I made a 40kb sig just now, ill show you the differences in just a minute, they are very minimal. After my test, the differences are significant between 19kb and 40kb, and well worth it in my opinion. Also newtekie, you dont even use a sig! your vote doesnt count lol.

PNG unchanged: 200KB

JPEG changed: 40KB

JPEG changed to under 19KB:

 

[newtekie1]

I made a 40kb sig just now, ill show you the differences in just a minute, they are very minimal. After my test, the differences are significant between 19kb and 40kb, and well worth it in my opinion. Also newtekie, you dont even use a sig! your vote doesnt count lol.

I have a sig pic, my F@H one. It is an external picture, but it is a 20KB BMP, and it is only like that because it is dynamically generated.

There is nothing wrong with the 19kb version, with images that small, the minor artifacts created by compressing the image to 19kb aren't noticeable unless you look extremely close, and no one is wasting time looking at sig pics under a microscope.

 

[imperialreign]

I agree the dimensions are fine - but some sig images, the amount of compression necessary to reach out kb cap can get ridiculous, and some images are more prone to the artifacting than others.

Here, if mussels doesn't mind, I'll use his sig as an example (as I have the original .psd file here) - I've also centered the images in the post as LCD screens don't always display colors correctly towards the edges, etc:

.jpg format, fully optimized 100% quality (70kb)

.jpg format, optimized at 88% quality (50kb)

.jpg format, optimized at 55% quality (25kb)

.jpg format, optimized at 50% quality (19kb)

notice with the lower quality images - how much lighter and washed-out the image is overall, color transitions are more pixelated and not smooth, the lettering is blurred and pixelated, overall image quality is much poorer.

Note as well that the image at 50kb looks a lot better, IMHO, than the one at 19kb - there are some differences between the 100% and 88%, but it's not as bad as with the more compressed images.




I'm not saying we need to go hog-wild with our removing our restrictions, but bumping the cap up a bit would be nice.

There is nothing wrong with the 19kb version, with images that small, the minor artifacts created by compressing the image to 19kb aren't noticeable unless you look extremely close, and no one is wasting time looking at sig pics under a microscope.

sorry, but I think, at least in the example I posted here, they're highly noticeable

 

[newtekie1]

sorry, but I think, at least in the example I posted here, they're highly noticeable

Noticeable, yes. However, there is nothing wrong with the 19kb version, it still looks fine. It is just a sig pic, it doesn't need to be more than 19kb.

 

[RadeonX2]

looking at my sig the "techpowerup" is the most noticeable IQ lost due to compression :shadedshu

 

[DonInKansas]

If they up it, I think that's setting a bad precendent, because then people will ask for it to be raised again...and again....and again......

I had to squint and stare to tell the difference between the pics in the example. I guess my eyes aren't in HD.

 

[imperialreign]

Noticeable, yes. However, there is nothing wrong with the 19kb version, it still looks fine. It is just a sig pic, it doesn't need to be more than 19kb.

it might look fine to you - but that pixelation bugs the ever-lovin-crap outta me . . . even moreso considering it's my work. But, the fact of the matter is that the IQ is still noticeable and considering that there is a noticeable difference in image quality, and these signature images that we create are for another user, not ourselves - they should have the privelage of the best IQ that we can provide.

I'm not saying that there is always a difference in IQ - but sometimes there is . . . personally, I don't like submitting a work to another user for their approval if I'm not happy with the final IQ, but when we're hampered by a rather tight size restriction . . .

 

[newtekie1]

They are sig images, not works of art, the only people that even really look at them are the sig owner. Personally, I would rather them just ban images in sigs anyway.

 

[SystemViper]

They are sig images, not works of art, the only people that even really look at them are the sig owner. Personally, I would rather them just ban images in sigs anyway.

I think that is your opinion, if somebody spends a some time trying to get an image spot on, that is a work of art, just because you have no appreciation for the finer points of images or the time it takes to get something that looks slick. Why not let them have their fun.


Who can say what is considered art anyway.



It's seems an easy decision, the people that don't use one or don't care it shouldn't matter, and the people that like to have a photo sig will make great use of that extra 20k with less distortion and more color.

Also that 20k shouldn't impact the loading times and if it does, there should be a setting to turn all sig's off.

I say give it a 1 month trial, then see what problems arise and what they specifically are, rather then trying to hear opinions.

 

[imperialreign]

I think that is your opinion, if somebody spends a some time trying to get an image spot on, that is a work of art, just because you have no appreciation for the finer points of images or the time it takes to get something that looks slick. Why not let them have their fun.


Who can say what is considered art anyway.



It's seems an easy decision, the people that don't use one or don't care it shouldn't matter, and the people that like to have a photo sig will make great use of that extra 20k with less distortion and more color.

Also that 20k shouldn't impact the loading times and if it does, there should be a setting to turn all sig's off.

I say give it a 1 month trial, then see what problems arise and what they specifically are, rather then trying to hear opinions.

I completely agree . . .




the notion that there wasn't any difference in IQ between a 19kb image and a slightly larger image has been debunked, IMO - I think I was able to demonstrate that. if need be, I'm more than willing to post up other images that show a difference in IQ as well . .

instead, the arguement went from there not being any difference to "there's no need"

well - considering how many different users we have here at TPU, it offers indivuality, IMO. Plus, I find it easy to skin through pages of threads by looking for key signatures, if I'm trying to find where my last post was, or someone's last post was . . .

besides, like I said, it bring user individuality to the board. Hell, why don't we get rid of all sigs altogether, then get rid of all avartars as well . . . just picture it - one bland thread after another. Quite an intriguing idea, I think . . . kinda reminds me of Equilibrium.

 

[mullered07]

thread has been done before, outcome: no need to, end of!

thats the way i see it. i cant see what would be gained from changing it, only wasting some of w1zzards time in the process.