Signatures

Topic: Signatures (Read 11619 times) previous topic - next topic

Reply #60 – June 18, 2007, 03:07:42 PM

Well, it looks plenty visible to me.

Signatures

Reply #61 – June 18, 2007, 03:27:59 PM

*sigh*

What the heck is going on here lately? I can understand if people want a sig limitation, but what's with the whining?

Again......Anybody want me to shrink mine?

Signatures

Reply #62 – June 19, 2007, 09:01:31 AM

I'm kind-of with Zach on this one. Some sigs are a bit on the large side. I'm not mentioning names so I ask not to get attacked or

The example that he posted I think is fair. My sig picture is 480 x 136 and it's plenty large

Signatures

Reply #63 – June 19, 2007, 11:20:08 AM

if we went by the 500x** my new shrunk sig would be too big because i believe its around 557x***, (i would give the specs but my mouse has taken a dive and im doing all this by KB). And no im not whining if people still think my sig is too big then i will delete it.

Signatures

Reply #64 – June 19, 2007, 11:35:03 AM

Personally, sigs are nice, but if you can turn them of then I would. I have no problems with sigs, with or without broadband.

Though I do understand were everyone is coming from.

Signatures

Reply #65 – June 19, 2007, 11:53:56 AM

Quote from: Red_LX;155229

I guess the thing I don't like about some of those size limits is that if you have an image that ISN'T a banner, or banner-ish, it ends up looking squished and awful.

The image in my signature, for example, I tried to make smaller before using it, and if I make it any smaller than it is now it looks like and you can't make out any of the details.

i still dont get it after all these years of ing with computers. To resize, all you have to do is disipline yourself to "save as .jpg"

1-Next, right click jpg and open with "microsoft office picture manager"

2-change the percentage only to whatever is suitable.

3-Click "save"

red lx

here is your sig i resized to 70%,, as a result, its less than 1/2 ist original size. Dont ask me how cause the math isnt there but still.

BTW,, all the stuff i do here as well as posting pics, schematics ect ,, Im doing it all on 19,2k dialup.

I even do my work / job on that speed.

I dont care either away, i just deal with my situation and find ways around speed issues.

you dont need any "special software" ect ,, thats just plain silly. Microsoft provides enough stuff standard to do all the size changes you need.

The only thing that gripes my ass is when pics are posted and the darn page loads up like the rest of the photo is outside my monitor.

red lx, on a side note,, i didnt think your original size was an issue,, its only like 45k. your sig never bothered me before.

Signatures

Reply #66 – June 19, 2007, 12:09:18 PM

Quote from: jcassity;155471

here is your sig i resized to 70%,, as a result, its less than 1/2 ist original size. Dont ask me how cause the math isnt there but still.

70% = 0.7

you are taking 70% height and 70% width

0.7x0.7 = 0.49

or 49% the original file size

Signatures

Reply #67 – June 19, 2007, 12:21:31 PM

so doing some inventory here on 19.2 dialup,,,:D

here are the stats,,,,,,, if your not on the list then its because its just so small it isnt worth noting.

I dont know what is good or bad,, just what defaults are built into the board. id say 20k is decent for a guide.

thunderchicken 27.6k

daboss 55.5k

32vfpxbord 14.4k

84fila 14.3k

yellow86cougar 26.8k

cougrrr302 21.3k

kingcars 78k

turbocoupe50 12.5k

20th anny 5.0 40k

v8demon -sig profiles as unknown but ms office thinks its a .bmp. Open with paint and its 291k,,, save as .jpg and its 24.8k

cougarse 28.8k

old raven 79k

red lx 49k

5.0willgo 59k

jcassity 19.2 (purposefully to match my internet speed : )

thundergrowl 36.4k

Signatures

Reply #68 – June 19, 2007, 12:27:04 PM

Quote from: V8Demon;155265

Again......Anybody want me to shrink mine?

ZOMG, urz is so big!

I fix...

Paul
87 5.0 TFS hds Cam Int. and other goodies...3.1kLbs...~12's
05 'Stang GT-Whipplecharged >400 HP

Signatures

Reply #69 – June 19, 2007, 12:33:56 PM

or this

right click prop's 24k in jpg , i think his is just faux on how big it is. Just because it looks big doesnt mean it is. I think that hidden url within tricks us.

Signatures

Reply #70 – June 19, 2007, 12:47:33 PM

Keep in mind, folks. The main point I was trying to make with this thread was the overall size of signatures.
The file size of the images is one thing, and I'm glad we've covered that topic. Again, some of us are still on dial-up.

However, I was getting fed up with scrolling down a topic to read posts and having one person's signature take up 50%-70% of the screen. And if that person posted more than once, well... I began to lose my temper.
That left each page in a thread with less and less content and more redundant signature material.
That was my main gripe. Looking back, it goes hand-in-hand with the file size of images.

Signatures

Reply #71 – June 19, 2007, 01:33:46 PM

I had done mine on dial-up. If its too big, please let me know. I also think we needed to cover this (not a big issue for me because I get to recognize people by their signatures & screen names). A lot of forums do have a size regulation for signatures. I did mine to fall in the size regulations of other forums.

Signatures

Reply #72 – June 19, 2007, 01:45:59 PM

Woah. Why is my little image so big? (maybe it's because I love the 'High Quality' save feature in PS.)

Signatures

Reply #73 – June 19, 2007, 02:16:23 PM

It isn't the "density" (for the lack of a better term) of the images, it is the physical height that is the issue.

Signatures

Reply #74 – June 19, 2007, 04:25:17 PM

I don't even mind the file size that much - the Fasterfox extension to Firefox does a really nice job of caching, so I only have to download 'em once. The physical height is the problem I see - I'm running 1280X800 on a 15" widescreen laptop and some of the sigs do take up half a screen or more.

For example, since Red_LX's sig was brought up, here's a screenshot (I reduced the image to 75%). Zach was not exaggerating, in fact he was being conservative - it's more than 50% of the screen. An entire screen for one two line post - the rest is signature. Also note the time in the lower right corner - it took 343 seconds to load that page through dialup, even with fasterfox enabled: