Avatar size limits

[Lain]

I think that the avatar file size limit should be increased, to around 30-50 kb. If not for everybody, then just the Premium members.

It's sad that I have to struggle to make a 120x120 image under 25kb, often noticeably sacrificing quality to reach that size.

The main problem is that I might have a 26-30 kb PNG that I would like to use, but in order to get it to drop below 25, I have to convert it to either a GIF and accept great loss of color information, or to a JPG and accept unpleasant artifacts. And both of these compromises drop the file size well below 25 kb, usually to around the 10 kb mark. In other words, we can't even really effectively utilize the 25 kb we're currently allotted. Just a little bit more would go a long way. 👍

 

[Robin]

There are many ways to optimize avatars using photoshop and some freeware tools but not all these things are open to people especially if they arnt very computer savvy and it can be a pain.

The KB limits have been the same for a very long time and I think it would be nice if the physical and file size limits were bumped up slightly again, like increasing premium size from 120x120 to 150x150 and the same 30px increase for standard members. Something like 200px would be amazing.

I don't know if something like this is in the pipeline for the next GTP update.

 

[boshuter]

I think you may just need to find better ways to convert the size. A 25k 120X120 shouldn't be hard to achieve.

 

[Rykon Zero]

While I firmly believe in the current avatar sizes, they make the page less cluttered and give enough space to show what you want, I think the actual file size should be bumped up, if not for normal users, then for the users who help pay for the site, the premos.

 

[TB]

Lord only knows what kind of visual carnage Casio could inflict with a larger file size to work with.

 

[CAM]

Lord only knows what kind of visual carnage Casio could inflict with a larger file size to work with.

There might need to be a warning for epileptic seizures before viewing his posts if that were the case.

 

[Rykon Zero]

Oh. Valid point.

I think we should block gifs and only use HTML coding on this website.

 

[Lain]

I think you may just need to find better ways to convert the size. A 25k 120X120 shouldn't be hard to achieve.

It's not hard to achieve. For certain images though, it's hard (if not impossible) to achieve with the desired quality.

I refuse to use JPG since it results in nasty artifacts that IMO compromise the clarity of the image too greatly at 25 KB, so I'm forced to use GIF which means the color range of my images is extremely low. If it's all close to the same color, it's usually fine. But an avatar with a wide range of colors ends up looking very poor.

I know to most people 25 kb is fine and I might seem nit-picky, but I don't see the harm in increasing the limit by 5-10 kb. Other than potential seizures.

 

[Jordan]

I'm happy with the current avatar sizes and don't currently have any plans on changing the maximum constraints in the next iteration of the site (GTP11). As boshuter mentioned, you should be able to fit most any static image with a reasonable amount of compression into 25KB. The file size limit exists, of course, to keep page loading speeds to a minimum and to discourage elaborate GIF animations.

Could you share some of the images you've had trouble with, yaywalter? You may also want to try running them through a compression service such as Smush.it or PunyPNG.

 

[Lain]

Could you share some of the images you've had trouble with, yaywalter? You may also want to try running them through a compression service such as Smush.it or PunyPNG.

Well for instance, my current avatar in PNG form is 29,993 bytes, and has noticeably less murky color than the GIF version I uploaded.

I tested those two sites out though. Smush.it was able to lower it by 675 bytes, and PunyPNG was able to reduce it by 924. Potentially helpful in some close calls, but they're not gonna achieve miracles.

I'm happy with the current avatar sizes and don't currently have any plans on changing the maximum constraints in the next iteration of the site (GTP11). As boshuter mentioned, you should be able to fit most any static image with a reasonable amount of compression into 25KB. The file size limit exists, of course, to keep page loading speeds to a minimum and to discourage elaborate GIF animations.

I know that not everyone has the fastest of connections, but a small bump in avatar size would result in negligible difference in page loading. For those whose internet connections are so slow that an extra 100 kb per page would be noticeable, they'd be better off just turning the display of avatars off entirely, even under the current size limit.

Regarding "elaborate" GIF animations, I'm not sure what the problem is with that. I could understand wanting to discourage obnoxious animations, but you can make a GIF animation that's plenty annoying with the 25 kb limit.

 

[AOS-]

Actually Mr.Yay, when you go to index it at 256, it's barely noticeable... Most of the avatars I've been making are roughly 9kb, and the most recent ones have been sitting at 14kb...

Here's a trick, to avoid getting the "destroyed artifiacts" I actually sharpen the images a bit higher than usual so it already appears to have a bit of a quality loss. Then when I go to index them, we get seemingly no difference in quality.

Gifs on the other hand... well I just made this one right now, and the images already had a grungy-look so reducing colours wasn't a visual problem anyway.

 

[Coxis]

I get the reasoning for the small size avatars, but I think we have to acknowledge that times change, and while in 2001 the global internet speed was very low, today in the 2010s we have 100+ Mbit home connections. Statistically, the use of dial-up connections is going down by the day and due to this I think the size limit could use at least 15-25kb more.

Just my opinion.

 

[Northstar]

I get the reasoning for the small size avatars, but I think we have to acknowledge that times change, and while in 2001 the global internet speed was very low, today in the 2010s we have 100+ Mbit home connections. Statistically, the use of dial-up connections is going down by the day and due to this I think the size limit could use at least 15-25kb more.

Just my opinion.

Not everyone has 100mbs internet though, in fact unless you have access to fiber optic you are lucky to get above 10mbs at a decent price in the states.

Besides, limitations force people to be more creative.(I know i have a very simple, uncreative avatar)

 

[Lain]

Not everyone has 100mbs internet though, in fact unless you have access to fiber optic you are lucky to get above 10mbs at a decent price in the states.

Besides, limitations force people to be more creative.(I know i have a very simple, uncreative avatar)

True, not everyone has blazing fast internet connections. But we're talking about kilobytes here. Even if the size limit was tripled, the additional data needed to be loaded per page wouldn't even increase by a whole megabyte. Unless you're on dial-up, in which case you should have avatars turned off even now, you're not gonna notice a drastic difference in speed.

And it's true that limitations can induce creativity... on figuring out how to overcome the limitation.

Here's a trick, to avoid getting the "destroyed artifiacts" I actually sharpen the images a bit higher than usual so it already appears to have a bit of a quality loss. Then when I go to index them, we get seemingly no difference in quality.

I can't imagine that method being particularly effective and/or consistent. It sounds too wrong.
Regarding 256 colors though, no. The difference is quite noticeable.

 

[Jordan]

Well for instance, my current avatar in PNG form is 29,993 bytes, and has noticeably less murky color than the GIF version I uploaded.

I wouldn't say a PNG file is the best for that type of image. Could you post that 29KB original file so I could take a look at it?

Regarding "elaborate" GIF animations, I'm not sure what the problem is with that. I could understand wanting to discourage obnoxious animations, but you can make a GIF animation that's plenty annoying with the 25 kb limit.

You certainly can, but I'm specifically referring to lengthy animations or "videos" with lots of frames.

I get the reasoning for the small size avatars, but I think we have to acknowledge that times change, and while in 2001 the global internet speed was very low, today in the 2010s we have 100+ Mbit home connections. Statistically, the use of dial-up connections is going down by the day and due to this I think the size limit could use at least 15-25kb more.

Just my opinion.

That's true - most of us blessed with fast connections would not notice any change in page loading speed with avatars hundreds of kilobytes in size. My point, however, is that there are very few practical reasons any 120x120 GIF, JPEG, or PNG file should be much larger than 25KB (not one I'd like to see as an avatar here, at least). That's why I'd like to take a closer look at the image yaywalter's having trouble with - if such an image can't fit into that constraint without a significant loss in quality, that is a problem that would make me reconsider the maximum size.

 

[Lain]

Here's the GIF I ended up using and the PNG side by side, in that order:

As you can see, the colors are brighter in the PNG. This is because the PNG has full transparency. With the GIF, I can't make the background transparent because it made the lighter and darker shades of gray look noticeably spotty when I tried it. So I'm forced to actually put the background shade of gray into the image, which results in other colors being made gray and murky due to the 256 color limit.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I can't imagine that method being particularly effective and/or consistent. It sounds too wrong.
Regarding 256 colors though, no. The difference is quite noticeable.

Are you using Photoshop? If so, I'd highly recommend Save for Web instead. I've been exporting with that for every image for the Photomode Competitions, with a JPG quality level set at 93. The artifacting is very minimal, and the file size is significantly lower than full-quality. Depending on the image, you could go even higher. As has been mentioned, there shouldn't be any trouble getting any static 120px image down to the limit, really.

As for image size - I'll agree with Jordan (and not just because I'm a Mod ), that any bigger isn't necessary. I went to join up at another forum the other day but decided against it because of their focus on images and creativity first. I love working within the limitations of the board (see my gallery for that), but this is a message board first, so I like that right now, the focus is on the message, not on how elaborate/c00l/what-have-you the avatar is. This is the same reason I'm always against images in signatures, too.

(EDIT)

Normal and a newly-saved Dithered copy, since I realized you may want to stick with PNG for the transparencies. This is now *very* comfortably under the limit :

 

[Lain]

Normal and a newly-saved Dithered copy, since I realized you may want to stick with PNG for the transparencies. This is now *very* comfortably under the limit :

I eat my words. There really isn't a need to increase the size limit after all.

Before I go though, I guess I'll just say that I agree with Robin that an increase in dimensions would be nice and that I'm a little disappointed that GTP11 won't be delivering that.

 

[Coxis]

You're the boss, Jordan.

Oh, and for the record: I do NOT have a 100Mb connection... I have a horrible, horrible 1Mb connection with .1 Mb upstream. Third world countries FTW.

Still, while it is an awful connection, it's still more than 18 times the speed of a dial-up connection back in the day.

 

[AOS-]

As you can see, the colors are brighter in the PNG. This is because the PNG has full transparency. With the GIF, I can't make the background transparent because it made the lighter and darker shades of gray look noticeably spotty when I tried it. So I'm forced to actually put the background shade of gray into the image, which results in other colors being made gray and murky due to the 256 color limit.

Alternatively, you can up the saturation and brightness before going gif....

 

[Lain]

Alternatively, you can up the saturation and brightness before going gif....

That'd just make it worse. I'd lose detail doing that, and everything would still end up grayish when converting to GIF and lose even more detail. 👍

 

[gogatrs]

What if Jordan were to bump it up to say 30 kb and 200 pixels.
And were to give either a hide avatars or hide avatars above x size option.

 

[NLxAROSA]

The problem with limits is that people reach them, no matter what. So even if the avatar size and dimensions were increased a bit, it would be a very short while before someone else runs into the new limits and ask for them to be increased. I think it's best to sort out individual issues the way it was done here and only change the forum settings if there's a large number of users experiencing issues.

 

[Coxis]

200x200 is actually rather large for a forum avatar, I've been to forums where there is no size limit of kind type for avatars or signatures -- it's a mess. There's a reason why GTP looks so freakin' tidy. 👍

 

[Robin]

200x200 is actually rather large for a forum avatar, I've been to forums where there is no size limit of kind type for avatars or signatures -- it's a mess. There's a reason why GTP looks so freakin' tidy. 👍

I've seen many forums with 200px avatars and it seems a reasonable size. I think GTP would still look great regardless of avatar size because there are no pic sig's and the sites layout is extremely clean.

it would be a very short while before someone else runs into the new limits and ask for them to be increased.

I haven't seen anyone ask about an increase for half a decade so I don't think there would be a mad rush of people asking for further upping of the limits.

 

[BobK]

I've never had a problem with avatar sizes for myself, either in pixels or byte count.

 

[Pupik]

I've never had a problem with avatar sizes for myself, either in pixels or byte count.

Your signature is also too long, do something about it, or you're in trouble...

 

[homeforsummer]

I think "my avatar size isn't big enough" is definitely one of those "first world pains"

 

[ghskilla]

Did a quick search and I need to bump this thread because of avatar quality issues. So, I've tried compressing PNG images and using it for my avatar, but it results in this: (left - before; right - after)

--->

And GIF just doesn't have the same quality...

--->

What should I do?

 

[porthillking]

Try and find a different avatar you could use?