Possibility to have 4mb .gif avatar?

[chobibo]

I just answered the questions, didn't imply anything.

 

[Selaya]

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.

 

[pyf]

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

23.1 KB actually, because it is the 96x96 animated GIF seen in threads

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... [...]

"Watch out you unlucky buggers who could die by looking at some cool images."

Spoiler: Cancer ahead? ;D

Battling Seizure Robots
Thirty Minutes over Tokyo - Wikipedia

 

[Chaosy]

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.

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.

So if the limit was increased to 1mb, a thread has 20 (unique) posters which is 10mb in total, which I can get in one second with my internet.
And it is a onetime thing since image caching is a thing in modern browsing.

Still, this is unrealistic. Everyone in a thread will not have a limit sized avatar even if it was allowed

 

[pyf]

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.

Wrong. The file size of some animated GIFs may increase when converted for display in threads.


Quoting myself from the previous page:

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.

 

[Chaosy]

Admittedly I did not think the conversation was that shit lmao
Still, I believe that could be fixed as it is probably a flaw with xenforo rather than anything else.

 

[Ralle]

It's a setting, it can be changed. But 4 MB is insane.

 

[Rui]

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

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 ^^xD

 

[Selaya]

80 mib'd be the maximum extreme worst case, but I'm repeating myself here
ghostwolf's reckoning of 50mib is probably more accurate on average, rng distribution and yadda dadda blablah y'know

 

[chobibo]

It's a setting, it can be changed. But 4 MB is insane.

How about 512kb?

 

[pyf]

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.

Ralle's avatar (animated GIF with transparent color, 94 images):
- on his profile: 100x100, 122 KB
- in forum posts: 96x96, 917 KB (!)

 

[Chaosy]

Whoever is responsible for that conversion needs to get his shit together.

 

[chobibo]

Dunno, he pays for the storage after all so I don't see it as unfair.

 

[Chaosy]

Pretty sure it is not Ralle, but rather xenforo.
And the problem is probably not storage space, it is the size it forces everyone to download

 

[chobibo]

Ah, I stand corrected.

 

[Dr Super Good]

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.

 

[Chaosy]

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.

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

 

[Dr Super Good]

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

What does this have to do with avatar file size?!

The background and text reuse common files. Per page background is like 1kb or less. User names on a page are also likely much less than 1kb. On the other hand some prick's animated GIF avatar might be 4MB under this stupid proposal, dwarfing the size of content actually used to compose the page.

 

[chobibo]

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.

 

[nedio95]

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.

On the other hand I like this more :|

Btw, what exactly is the current avatar size limit ?
I just tested and uploaded a 300kb while @Shar Dundred suggested that it is 244.1kb... Is that only for GIFs ?
If yes, why is there X limit on GIFs and Y on jpeg/static images (while X < Y) ?

regards
-Ned

 

[chobibo]

@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.

 

[nedio95]

@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.

I took a screenshot of my desktop... and uploaded that... 1280x1024
Edit: Reason why I am avatar-less now :|

regards
-Ned

 

[chobibo]

Yeah, you were right, a 247kb jpg image file works.

 

[Selaya]

Very unlikely that you'd be able to reproduce this behavior where a resized version would be worth more bytes than the original one in anything but an animated gif; probably just a quirk/inefficiency of the imagick resizer

 

[pyf]

More case studies:

PurgeandFire's avatar (animated GIF, 126 images):
- on his profile: 96x72, 51.7 KB (has transparent color)
- in forum posts: 96x96, 352 KB (!) (does not have transparent color)

BlueSaint's avatar (animated GIF, 24 images):
- on his profile: 100x100, 12.8 KB
- in forum posts: 96x96, 51.1 KB (!)

 

[chobibo]

Hidden

 

[Shar Dundred]

Anything new regarding this matter, @Ralle?

 

[Ralle]

I am not comfortable with raising the limit.

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.

Regardless, I am knee deep in house stuff and moving Hive to XF2. Both projects take precedence over this as I don't find it very essential.

 

[Shar Dundred]

Understandable.

 

[The_Silent]

Would make the server more expensive, as a lot more space would be needed for storing the images.

Also, the avatars looks fine to me as is on a 1080p monitor. Got a 4k one?

 

[Ralle]

It's more about bandwidth. People typically complain when pages contain GIFs bigger than just a few MBs. Having one for each avatar would be a disaster.

 

[pyf]

[...] 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.

... *and* Opera *and* Pale Moon natively, as of this writing.



Frequently Asked Questions  |  WebP  |  Google Developers
WebP - Wikipedia

 

[Chaosy]

Actually you do not need to store images on the server.
Websites can use external links.

 

[Selaya]

which potentially creates fifteen million security issues right there
also, its not the servers bandwidth that we're worried about but the users', and it doesnt matter whence your users have to fetch those files from

 

[pyf]

Actually you do not need to store images on the server.
Websites can use external links.

@Chaosy: *cough!* Photobucket *cough!*


Quoting Wikipedia:

"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."

Photobucket - Wikipedia

 

[nedio95]

@Chaosy and then you get the [Image not available] thing...

Haven't we dropped this already ?

-Ned

 

[Chaosy]

More or less.
I am just denying the silly reasons.

So what if I website stops working? yes it is inconvenient for a day but switch website in such an event and everything is back to normal.
If you link something with the IMG tag it does not get uploaded to hive, I do not see why it would be such a big deal if the same was true for avatars.

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.

 

[pyf]

[...] 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.

*Everything* matters.

Btw and maybe just for the sake of being annoying, has anyone noticed how the security padlock on the Forums page may get half-broken on occasion, when one uses the XUL version of Imagus? This happens to me with Pale moon (fork/build for Windows XP by roytam1). I am guessing it is because maybe Imagus is preloading at least one image from a non-https third-party site?
@Ralle

 

[Ralle]

I am saying I don't want the page loading to be heavy for the people loading the page, not the server. External locations doesn't fix that.