23.1 KB actually, because it is the 96x96 animated GIF seen in threadsYou don't need 50 MB for that, mine's 60kb according to pyf.
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... [...]
A page of a thread may contain up to 20 posts.
In the most extreme case, that'd mean 20*4mib = 80mib of avatars. :thinking:
You guys have to look at the grand scheme of things, and downloading 80 mib of avatars to view a single page of a thread is definitely far away from reasonableland.
Wrong. The file size of some animated GIFs may increase when converted for display in threads.It is important to know that even if you upload a 4mb file the avatar displayed will not be 4mb large.
All my avatars are 200x200 but but the image shown next my posts is only 100x100
If we simplify reality a bit and assume this means half the file size.. it means that it'd be 2mb per post instead of 4.
Still not good, but better.
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.
Well, @GhostWolf's worst case scenario is actually off by 30 MB. Each thread page is 20 posts. Assuming all posters are distinct, that's 20 * 4MB = 80 MB ^^xDYou don't need 50 MB for that, mine's 60kb according to pyf.
How about 512kb?It's a setting, it can be changed. But 4 MB is insane.
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.
If anything the limit should be lowered. I would recommend a maximum of 32kb for an avatar image. This would especially help mobile users, or anyone not using a high speed internet connection.
What does this have to do with avatar file size?!Also, we should make the entire site black and white.
Some graphic cards might handle colors very well
And while we are at it, 6 characters max per username because too many characters might lag some people's computer when trying to process that many characters
That would be cool, white text over black background, though I doubt it will save any bytes since background color can be controlled via css. I get your point though, not disagreeing.Also, we should make the entire site black and white.
Some graphic cards might handle colors very well
And while we are at it, 6 characters max per username because too many characters might lag some people's computer when trying to process that many characters
On the other hand I like this more :|If anything the limit should be lowered. I would recommend a maximum of 32kb for an avatar image. This would especially help mobile users, or anyone not using a high speed internet connection.
I took a screenshot of my desktop... and uploaded that... 1280x1024@nedio95: Can you share that image file? I'd like to test it too but I couldn't create a 200x200 image file worth 300kb. Thanks.
... *and* Opera *and* Pale Moon natively, as of this writing.[...] I'd rather go for adding support for WebP. A much superior animated image format. The only problem is that Chrome is the only supported browser so far.
@Chaosy: *cough!* Photobucket *cough!*Actually you do not need to store images on the server.
Websites can use external links.
"As of June 30, 2017, Photobucket dropped its free hosting service, and requires a US$99 annual subscription to allow external linking to all hosted images, or a US$399 annual subscription to allow the embedding of images on third-party websites, such as personal blogs and forums. This policy change, enacted with no advance notice, has been highly controversial. As a result, users who previously relied on Photobucket to freely host content embedded on forums, blogs, and websites must either pay the annual subscription (previously there was no charge), or switch to another 3rd party server and recreate every link (potentially thousands) for every photo previously linked to Photobucket."
*Everything* matters.[...] Just saying that "WE DO NOT HAVE SPACE" is a BS reason, there and more valid ones which were brought up before. As Selaya pointed out, the download size itself is the problem not where you get it from.