Possibility to have 4mb .gif avatar?

[Ether]

I wish we implement a system for larger limit of avatar we could use or an HD one for .gif and .jpg files. Is it possible?

 

[chobibo]

I'd be happy if it was raised to 512kb.

 

[pyf]

@Battleborn:

Imho it is possible. But is it really desirable? I personally do not think so.

Now, do you really need your avatar to be a 4 MB GIF file, which will be a heavy first download, and will also certainly tax one's CPU resources if it is an animated GIF (and I suspect it is)?

 

[chobibo]

It probably is animated if it's that big... I also don't understand the need for having an HD avatar image.

 

[Daffa]

I remember when I have a 4k GIF as signature and someone protest for it beig a hinder to them, so yeah.

 

[Shar Dundred]

I remember that, as a moderator, I have been able to use an animated Dark Archon avatar.
It didn't have a complicated animation and as far as I can tell, it didn't affect loading time of threads at all - even when I had an internet connection of potato level.
I don't remember the exact file size, but as "ordinary" user I am no longer able to use it. Mods can use avatars with bigger file size, though they too have a limit.

However, I assume that if EVERYONE would use a gif with large(r) file size as avatar... That could affect loading time.

I'd still love to have my gif avatar back.

I think 4MB is a bit over the top, but the current ava size could need an upgrade.
Maybe add a condition like "account has to be 3 years old" or smth. Or make it a reward for donations or I dunno.

 

[pyf]

Maybe I should point out that the avatar displayed in forum posts is not the same as the one displayed on one's Profile.

For chobibo's avatar (animated GIF with 6 images):
- 96x96 (23.1 KB) - in the forums
- 192x192 (60.2 KB) - on his Profile

As for Battleborn's avatar:
- 96x96 (3.79 KB) - in the forums
- 192x295 (15.6 KB) - on his Profile

I remember when I have a 4k GIF as signature and someone protest for it beig a hinder to them, so yeah.

For the record, one always has the possibility to not display signatures.

 

[Daffa]

I don't recall such feature commonly used, especially in the old days.

 

[pyf]

Maybe it is a XenForo feature?

The checkbox 'Show people's signatures with their messages' is in the Preferences options.

 

[chobibo]

@pyf, it seems that it got upscaled? my source gif is 45 kb

 

[Chaosy]

@Battleborn:

Imho it is possible. But is it really desirable? I personally do not think so.

Now, do you really need your avatar to be a 4 MB GIF file, which will be a heavy first download, and will also certainly tax one's CPU resources if it is an animated GIF (and I suspect it is)?

CPU not being able load a GIF in 2k18 omegalul
Internet, I can almost understand.

 

[Ether]

If we optimize a 2mb or above .gif file, it reduces to poor quality, that does not seem to look good as avatar. But if to resize to like... 50x50, it's really small and if that's how mini it is I'd rather prefer you to use the basic smiley Arthas or smirky Tyrande avatar.

 

[chobibo]

@Chaosy, I think I'd probably worry about the amount of data but then again, not everyone would use gifs for their avatar.

@Battleborn, The old hive had separate images for the threads and the user profile page. That would be optimal in my opinion. Also, at 200x200 resolution, the amount of compression artifacts aren't really that noticeable. And server space storage space probably costs money too.

 

[Shar Dundred]

@Ralle Let my gif avatars go!

 

[Chaosy]

Maybe this is overkill but could just make a limitless upload and then have a user setting like "Load avatars with less than X in size"
so if you poor internet you just put 50kb or something, otherwise put another number.

 

[chobibo]

That would be expensive though, for Ralle I mean.

 

[Shar Dundred]

Not to mention that there would be tens of thousands being like "Y PAGE LOAD SO SLOW? HOW TO IMPROVE?!"

 

[nedio95]

I see no reason for this. It is a forum avatar, not an art exhibition.

Also, I don't see how HD is going to do anything for you if the avatar is constrained to a small square in the corner. 34876245782574x3486673489673467 pixels scaled to 64x64 makes 64x64. You are wasting a few bajillion pixels depending on how the scaling is done.

I remember that, as a moderator, I have been able to use an animated Dark Archon avatar. ... Mods can use avatars with bigger file size, though they too have a limit.

Awwww, you should have not said that.... Now all the villagers are going to grab the forks and torches...

CPU not being able load a GIF in 2k18 omegalul
Internet, I can almost understand.

Some of us are browsing from a coal-powered ovens. Other from corporate computers which are comparable to solar-powered frying pan (a bent sheet of metal under the sun). Others live in countries where providers do not provide a particularly... usable internet connections... In some countries it is faster to upload on a memory stick and cycle to where you need those files to go...

regards
-Ned

 

[Shar Dundred]

Now all the villagers are going to grab the forks and torches...

Just as planned.

 

[San]

lol gauys how bout we acually improve ourselves instead of hiding behing an unnecessary heavy avatar that wastes other people's data and time to load xDDDDDDDDD

 

[Shar Dundred]

You're one to talk with that fabolous avatar!

 

[Naze]

I don't think it's necessary too... Some people have slow internet connections and others have internet services which in which you pay for a download quota per day or month, so spending 4 mb just to download someone's avatar wouldn't be optimal in these occasions. Consider you can also put heavier animated gifs in your signature.

 

[Shar Dundred]

With all due respect, 244.1 KB is pathetic. 1 MB would be a huge improvement.

 

[nedio95]

With all due respect, 244.1 KB is pathetic. 1 MB would be a huge improvement.

Do have in mind that space is bloody expensive.
That limit is mainly for the website hosting server not to get overloaded with a bajillion gigabytes of crappy useless data that it could actually do without. If you quadruple the size limits (244 > 1024) you suddenly turn 10gb for user avatars to 40. Even worse if you go with OP suggestion of 4mb. Also, usually up to 256 is the limit on most forums I've been around. For the same reasons.

Now again, no point with HD avatars. High resolution makes no sense, the noise to sound ratio would be ridiculous.
Animated gif that runs for 10 minutes ? I don't think anybody is here to look at ppl's avatars for that long...
The only benefit I see would be for artists to have a "demo" on their "face".

@Ralle , I think we gotta hear warchief's bidding on this.

regards
-Ned

 

[chobibo]

Raising .244mb to 1mb is a 76% increase, that would mean an increase of 7.6GB if the existing storage space used is 10GB...

just shitting lol XD

 

[pyf]

I remember that, as a moderator, I have been able to use an animated Dark Archon avatar.
It didn't have a complicated animation and as far as I can tell, it didn't affect loading time of threads at all - even when I had an internet connection of potato level. [...]

However, I assume that if EVERYONE would use a gif with large(r) file size as avatar... That could affect loading time.

As long as any file remains in the browser's cache, it does not require to be downloaded again.
Needless to say, the smaller the file size, the better imho.

Do have in mind that space is bloody expensive.
That limit is mainly for the website hosting server not to get overloaded with a bajillion gigabytes of crappy useless data that it could actually do without. If you quadruple the size limits (244 > 1024) you suddenly turn 10gb for user avatars to 40. Even worse if you go with OP suggestion of 4mb. Also, usually up to 256 is the limit on most forums I've been around. For the same reasons.

[...]

Maybe I should point out that the avatar displayed in forum posts is not the same as the one displayed on one's Profile.

For chobibo's avatar (animated GIF with 6 images):
- 96x96 (23.1 KB) - in the forums
- 192x192 (60.2 KB) - on his Profile

As for Battleborn's avatar:
- 96x96 (3.79 KB) - in the forums
- 192x295 (15.6 KB) - on his Profile

Now folks, get ready for some counter-intuitive numbers:

Shar Dundred's blue avatar (animated GIF, 33 images):
- on his profile: 125x125, 206 KB
- in forum posts: 96x96, 368 KB (!)

Shar Dundred's pink avatar (animated GIF, 25 images):
- on his profile: 115x180, 230 KB
- in forum posts: 96x96, 278 KB (!)

Hmm... Looks like the optimization process of converting *some* animated GIF files to 96x96, may increase their file size in the process. This is imho counter-productive, resources-wise.

CPU not being able load a GIF in 2k18 omegalul
Internet, I can almost understand.

Any processor can load a GIF file; what are you talking about?

Not everyone uses broadband internet connections. When using a Wi-Fi connection, I personally have an average download speed of 56 KB/s (meaning 128 KB/s at most in the morning, and sometimes as low as 12 KB/s in the evening (or even worse!).

If we optimize a 2mb or above .gif file, it reduces to poor quality, that does not seem to look good as avatar. But if to resize to like... 50x50, it's really small and if that's how mini it is I'd rather prefer you to use the basic smiley Arthas or smirky Tyrande avatar.

What GIF do you want to optimize, and how?

As a reminder, GIF files are always 256 color ones at best. They may have an alpha channel optional transparent background color (GIF89a) or not (GIF87a).

GIF - Wikipedia

[...]

@Battleborn, The old hive had separate images for the threads and the user profile page. That would be optimal in my opinion. Also, at 200x200 resolution, the amount of compression artifacts aren't really that noticeable. And server space storage space probably costs money too.

@pyf, it seems that it got upscaled? my source gif is 45 kb

Please see the counter-intuitive (and imho sub-optimal) figures above.

Hive 2.0 also uses separate images for threads and for user profiles.

Not to mention that there would be tens of thousands being like "Y PAGE LOAD SO SLOW? HOW TO IMPROVE?!"

I am personally more concerned about the embedded videos, which are a real burden to load when there is a huge amount of them in a single page.

With all due respect, 244.1 KB is pathetic. 1 MB would be a huge improvement.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better.

 

[Chaosy]

Some of us are browsing from a coal-powered ovens. Other from corporate computers which are comparable to solar-powered frying pan (a bent sheet of metal under the sun). Others live in countries where providers do not provide a particularly... usable internet connections... In some countries it is faster to upload on a memory stick and cycle to where you need those files to go...

If we'd design everything for stoneage people we'd never move forward and be stuck in the stoneage.

Also, I don't see how HD is going to do anything for you if the avatar is constrained to a small square in the corner. 34876245782574x3486673489673467 pixels scaled to 64x64 makes 64x64. You are wasting a few bajillion pixels depending on how the scaling is done.

For GIF it is not about being HD, as you only have a limited amount of pixels.
But rather the FPS. If you want a smooth GIf you probably want 16 frames if not more.As someone who has used a few GIF avatars in the past.. very hard to make this fit the current restrictions without running it through an 'optimizer' which makes it weird by reducing the number of colors.
Maybe I have just been unlucky with my images.

Not to mention that there would be tens of thousands being like "Y PAGE LOAD SO SLOW? HOW TO IMPROVE?!"

There are ways to work around it.
For example you could load the avatars dynamically, meaning you'll display the site and the avatars are loaded in the background while you browse and appear when ready.
Could have a setting to show higher size avatars (default option is off)
Allow 10k posts+ to have more awesome avatars than normal peasants. (SERIOUS SUGGESTION TOTALLY OK)

If you want to fix it, there are solutions. But probably not, I reckon there are more important things to tinker with.

 

[nedio95]

If we'd design everything for stoneage people we'd never move forward and be stuck in the stoneage.

Guess what, the great majority of computers out there are from the stone age. Guess what else, warcraft 3(main reason for web site population) is also from the stone age and is one of the preferred games of choice for cavemen. What was it 128mb ram or 64 requirment? or 32...

For GIF it is not about being HD, as you only have a limited amount of pixels.
But rather the FPS. If you want a smooth GIf you probably want 16 frames if not more.As someone who has used a few GIF avatars in the past.. very hard to make this fit the current restrictions without running it through an 'optimizer' which makes it weird by reducing the number of colors.
Maybe I have just been unlucky with my images.

Fair enough, did not think of it that way. As I am aware, smooth frame rate is about 22+

If you want to fix it, there are solutions. But probably not, I reckon there are more important things to tinker with.

I don't think there is a problem to fix to begin with. :|

regards
-Ned

 

[Chaosy]

You sure?
I think there was a poll of where people lived, overwhelming majority in Europe and NA.
Guess what, most countries there have pretty good internet.

 

[pyf]

If we'd design everything for stoneage people we'd never move forward and be stuck in the stoneage.

It is all about making sensible technical decisions.

For GIF it is not about being HD, as you only have a limited amount of pixels.
But rather the FPS. If you want a smooth GIf you probably want 16 frames if not more.As someone who has used a few GIF avatars in the past.. very hard to make this fit the current restrictions without running it through an 'optimizer' which makes it weird by reducing the number of colors.
Maybe I have just been unlucky with my images.

With GIF files, one has a limited amount of colors.

GIF - Wikipedia

There are ways to work around it. [...]

Maybe:
Pale Moon - Add-ons - Greedy Cache

(... and yes, I am using it).

 

[Chaosy]

I know. Which is why color reduction hurts.
I used an online optimizer which had the option of bringing it down to 128 colors~ which has a really ugly effect but apparently that impacts file size.

 

[chobibo]

@pyf, I meant separate source images, not just two images. You can upload another image for your profile and another one for threads (avatar image and profile image). I hope that clears it up.

 

[pyf]

If we'd design everything for stoneage people we'd never move forward and be stuck in the stoneage.

I know. Which is why color reduction hurts.
I used an online optimizer which had the option of bringing it down to 128 colors~ which has a really ugly effect but apparently that impacts file size.

Stop being stuck in the stoneage Chaosy, and use the APNG file format maybe?



APNG - Wikipedia
(sorry, IE/Edge users...)

[...] Guess what else, warcraft 3(main reason for web site population) is also from the stone age and is one of the preferred games of choice for cavemen. What was it 128mb ram or 64 requirment? or 32...

The recommended system requirements range from 128 MB (RoC) to 256 MB (TFT) on W2000/XP
Warcraft III - F.A.Q. -> Features F.A.Q.
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Requirements Test

For the record, W98/ME is designed for PCs with 64 MB RAM, while W2000/XP is designed for PCs with 128 MB. These OSes can run with less memory (up to a point), but I personally do not recommend it.

You sure?
I think there was a poll of where people lived, overwhelming majority in Europe and NA.
Guess what, most countries there have pretty good internet.

Again, some people may use Wi-Fi connections @128 KB/s max for download.

Maybe it is possible to tweak some settings, to be able to always use/reclaim the bandwidth which is reserved for QoS. In which case I am guessing it might be possible to download at 168 KB/s max (?).

[...] If you quadruple the size limits (244 > 1024) you suddenly turn 10gb for user avatars to 40. [...]

I personally would say 160 GB (= 10x16), not 40 (= 10x4).

This is because doubling the resolution of an image does not double its file size, it quadruples it.


This is the mathematical formula:

... meaning, continuing from the example above:

Original resolution:
(800x600x4) / 8192 = 234.375 KB

Doubling the original resolution:
(1600x1200x4) / 8192 = 937.5 KB (=> four times bigger!)

Quadrupling the original resolution:
(3200x2400x4) / 8192 = 3750 KB (=> sixteen times bigger!)

 

[nedio95]

I personally would say 160 GB (= 10x16), not 40 (= 10x4).

This is because doubling the resolution of an image does not double its file size, it quadruples it.

Ahhhhm, that is in file size, not resolution... (My mistake, probably should have specified) 244KB >> 1024 KB
That was in reply to Shar Dundred suggesting 244.1KB increase to 1MB.
Also, I have rounded my math a lot as 4*244.1KB != 1MB

War3 requirements? I am working mostly with numbers on top of my head.
Doesn't really matter if it is 128 or 32 or 64 or 16 or 256 or even 512. All is a tiny fraction of the requirements of modern games.
Although, I have to agree that required specs for OS are something that has to definitely be kept in mind or even remembered...

-Ned

 

[Selaya]

as a sysadmin 4 mib avatars makes me wanna kms really

250 kib should be aplenty given that most of the time it'll be scaled down to 96*96 px
(why are avatars such a critical feature of xf anyways, cant we just disable like in vb ..)

 

[chobibo]

@pyf: If I understood that properly, that means a single frame GIF would be calculated like so: (width x height x 3) ; log2(8) = 3

multi-frame GIFs would probably be [ (nthWidth x nthHeight x 3) + (nthWidth x nthHeight x 3) + ... ]

Thanks, for the explanation.

 

[Chaosy]

Again, some people may use Wi-Fi connections @128 KB/s max for download.

Maybe it is possible to tweak some settings, to be able to always use/reclaim the bandwidth which is reserved for QoS. In which case I am guessing it might be possible to download at 168 KB/s max (?).

And others may have 10mb/s wifi, you can find an extreme in either direction.
Just go and look at the "post your internet speed" thread, seen some pretty high speeds to say the least.
Guess what I do not recall seeing? < 100 kb

Sure, they exist, but they are not the majority by any means.

edit: here are the 5 most recent posts from said thread:

 

[pyf]

Thanks, I know that thread already. I never posted my own results there.

Regarding the five most recent results you posted, are these for Wi-Fi connections from hotspots (802.11g), which is imho the worst-case scenario to consider for mobile devices here?


For real-time upload / download monitoring, I personally use the outdated NetSpeedMonitor 2.5.4.0
NetSpeedMonitor - Florian Gilles Homepage (from Archive.org, June 2014)

*Major* caveats:
Windows 8 (and above) users should use Compatibility mode for install (this software was designed with Vista / 7 in mind). Also Windows XP users should *immediately* disable 'Traffic Logging with SQLite Database' (in the database tab), or else this feature may corrupt their icon cache and system tray over time.

 

[Chaosy]

My university wifi is 8mb/s, and that is while I am sharing with a few hundred students.
So it depends on what kind of wifi we're talking about.

I've watched HD youtube videos at mcdonals hotspots without issues. Then again Sweden has pretty good internet compared to other countries so maybe I am biased.

Even so, on mobile devices the images are scaled down. I think the avatars are like 64x64 or something on my Samsung A3 2017
That should reduce the images enough to (more or less) make up for shit wifi

edit:

Unless it downloads the full image anyway... I am unsure.

 

[nedio95]

My home wi-fi is 1.8mb/s when it is not on it's period... usually ~400-500 kb/s (UK here) and that is the big pack, if you take the small pack you are limited to 10GB per month...
@Chaosy, most west-European countries have horrible internet while most east-European countries have some of the best in the whole world.


~Meh

 

[pyf]

My university wifi is 8mb/s, and that is while I am sharing with a few hundred students.
So it depends on what kind of wifi we're talking about. [...]

To discover the specifics of wireless networks around you, I personally recommend this tool:
WirelessNetView - Wireless Network Monitoring Software

A few examples for some well-known French ISPs:
- FreeWifi: 802.11g - 54 Mbps max - average signal 82% with 100% detection
- SFR WiFi FON: 802.11g - 54 Mbps max - average signal 87% with 100% detection
- Orange: 802.11g - 18 Mbps max - average signal 41% with 72% detection

(note: all the percentages vary from individual to individual for obvious reasons)

Needless to say, a device which supports up to the 802.11g protocol may appear as being 'slow' nowadays, with the 802.11n protocol around since many years now.

IEEE 802.11 - Wikipedia

Even so, on mobile devices the images are scaled down. I think the avatars are like 64x64 or something on my Samsung A3 2017
That should reduce the images enough to (more or less) make up for shit wifi

... or for the sh*t device itself?

 

[chobibo]

Maybe the phone has a browser that has a compression feature for images... I remember I had used opera on a blackberry phone and one of it features is that it 'optimizes' data transfer. Most of the images it displays looke like highly compressed jpeg images, full of artifacts that somehow it appeared like a normal map texture.

 

[pyf]

Yeah, I myself had Opera Mini in mind.

 

[GhostWolf]

Yes. When I open a thread on the Hive, I do it to download 50 megabytes of cancer blinking images.

 

[chobibo]

You don't need 50 MB for that, mine's 60kb according to pyf.

 

[nedio95]

Yes. When I open a thread on the Hive, I do it to download 50 megabytes of cancer blinking images.

Which does not stop people to upload 50MB images describing their problems in visually pleasing way... mostly screenshots of GUI triggers consisting of 2 lines...

You don't need 50 MB for that, mine's 60kb according to pyf.

And you have chosen the most irritating colours in existence....

Edit//I do sound a bit douche here, don't I ?

regards
-Ned

 

[chobibo]

I guess it worked if someone found it annoying lol

 

[nedio95]

I guess it worked if someone found it annoying lol

If you give somebody epileptic shock with your avatar, can they sue you? Or the website? There is no warning on the website saying "Watch out you unlucky buggers who could die by looking at some cool images." or if you write it on your posts/signatures/avatar it would be like too late...

:|

regards
-Ned

 

[chobibo]

Of course they can.

EDIT: On both questions.

 

[nedio95]

Of course they can.

EDIT: On both questions.

Should I read that as "LET THEM TRY! I WILL BASH THEIR SCKULLS IN" :|
Anyway, good luck with that.

I really want to hear warchieftain's opinion on this topic.

regards
-Ned