View Full Version : I`m a sig addict! Help me choose the one to use!
Ok, here´s the deal: I love making sigs. I don´t know why I like so much making them, but everytime I take a screenshot, I try to make a sig out of it! :)
Yesterday I made couple of my (IMO) best sigs to date and now I cant decide which to use! So please, vote me a new sig! :rotfl:
Here´s what I have:
1) My sub surfacing
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/9161/absig17bu.jpg
2) Seen from eyes of the soldier manning the MG
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/4651/portsig5dc.jpg
3) Leaving the port
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/2917/portsig22fb.jpg
4) My current
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/92/abava1nq.jpg
5) My WaW sig (Where have you seen this scene before? :) )
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/9703/wawsig12bz.jpg
Now, vote vote vote!
Dowly out!
kiwi_2005
11-09-05, 10:25 AM
I can't vote for 2 of them so...
That sub surfacing is a good shot.
And number 5 reminds me of the DAS BOOT movie
:up:
kiwi_2005
11-09-05, 10:26 AM
Ahh is No.5 taken from the Das Boot movie :hmm:
Ahh is No.5 taken from the Das Boot movie :hmm:
Hehe, yep. It´s the Gibraltar scene. I just made it black & white. :D
Type941
11-09-05, 11:39 AM
your current one, but please, make it smaller. Signatures in this forum are totally unmoderated, which is wrong imo, as some sigs are HUGE or too TALL. :stare:
JohnnyPotPie
11-09-05, 12:38 PM
i like the first one... the sub coming up from the ocean depths... neato :|\
The Avon Lady
11-09-05, 01:32 PM
i like the first one... the sub coming up from the ocean depths... neato :|\
Nope. Looks like the topless sub bug. :rotfl:
Might as well hijack this thread. What's better? This or my current sig?
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7486/wawbanner14fd.jpg
Marhkimov
11-09-05, 01:34 PM
I always prefer more compact sigs... If it can be done using less space, do it.
Teufelschiff
11-09-05, 01:37 PM
No 4. Why? It's haunting and unique. The image has no distractions. Its quiet statement tells you the sub is being DC'd and the crew inside is desparetely trying to stay alive. All in that little sig.
kiwi_2005
11-09-05, 01:37 PM
Might as well hijack this thread. What's better? This or my current sig?
The U-624 one is better.
The Avon Lady
11-09-05, 01:43 PM
I always prefer more compact sigs... If it can be done using less space, do it.
Look closely ==>>>http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/8683/00zd.jpg
Marhkimov
11-09-05, 01:46 PM
I always prefer more compact sigs... If it can be done using less space, do it.
Look closely ==>>>http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/8683/00zd.jpg
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
With my eagle-eyes, I can see it perfectly... Now it's the older folks that I'm worried about... :D
I like my current one too, but I like the others as much!
The 5. sig is taken from the movie U571. I´m planning on making a actual screenshot to look the same as that movie shot.
Teufelschiff
11-09-05, 03:33 PM
Thread hijack: :arrgh!: I was recently transferred to Lorient and on the occasion of my new boat my new sig kicks if I do say so myself.
Type941
11-09-05, 04:18 PM
I always prefer more compact sigs... If it can be done using less space, do it.
Look closely ==>>>http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/8683/00zd.jpg
haha.
From my experience, anything thats more than 500x150 is a nono and takes up too much space and makes me want to disable signatures all together. But apparently this is the only forum I've seen that noone seems to be bothered by it, and at times attach wallpapers.
Are you concerned about the time it takes to load a topic?
I could have even bigger sig and it would be less in bytes than, for example, Markhimov´s.
Mine: 14177b
Markhimov´s: 26488b
Ps. Markhimov, I´m not saying that your sig is too big in size! :cool:
Gizzmoe
11-09-05, 04:32 PM
Mine: 14177b
Markhimov´s: 26488b
Ps. Markhimov, I´m not saying that your sig is too big in size! :cool:
Marhkimov´s sig is only 6215 byte when you resave it at 85% quality. Most people simply don´t check the JPG quality setting, it´s a shame! Type941´s sig could also be more than 60% smaller in filesize, without any quality loss.
martes86
11-09-05, 04:35 PM
Hehe, yep. It´s the Gibraltar scene. I just made it black & white. :D
Oh, it looks like it was in colour. :D
silent_otto
11-09-05, 04:38 PM
The Avon Lady wrote:
marhkimov wrote:
I always prefer more compact sigs... If it can be done using less space, do it.
Look closely ==>>>
haha.
From my experience, anything thats more than 500x150 is a nono and takes up too much space and makes me want to disable signatures all together. But apparently this is the only forum I've seen that noone seems to be bothered by it, and at times attach wallpapers.
Ahhh I don't want to be a bummer (no pun intended :) but if someone found a way to do that I would be soooo grateful.
<MODE="RANT">
I hate sigs, I hate scrolling down "meters" (feet) of forum pages because of everyone's XXXXX sigs...
</MODE>
I thought I was the only one who did not like them :huh: but anyway there does not seem to be a way to disable them... I think I even asked sometime before but got no answer.
Marhkimov
11-09-05, 04:43 PM
In truth, it's not the dimensions of the sig that makes it so slow to load... It matters more about kb size.
Using my 'Marhkimov' sig as an example, I saved it in photoshop at the highest color resolution for jpg format. It is quite small in size (350x180) but it takes up a lot of memory (26488b).
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/hockeemaster/Signature%20Pics/marhkimov2.jpg
Compare and contrast my sig with Dowly's 'U-571' sig, which takes up more physical space (512x220) but actually takes up less memory (14177b).
http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/5145/abava3jj.jpg
In short, if a sig restriction were needed (not that I would care for one), sigs should be small in its physical dimensions, because sometimes larger sigs are just annoying... That's just my opinion.... But sigs should also take a lesser amount of kb space. Smaller kb size would help loading times.
Speaking of which, I think I'll re-design my current sig... Smaller and more efficient. Though perhaps a little larger than Avon Lady's suggestion... http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/8683/00zd.jpg :o
Marhkimov
11-09-05, 04:50 PM
But I like seeing other people's sigs. It gives more personality to a bunch of text... Well, as long as the sigs are appropriate in size and space usage. Meaning that they are reasonable.
Gizzmoe
11-09-05, 04:54 PM
Your sig, only 5.2kb instead of 26kb. :)
http://home.arcor.de/gizzmoe/files/marhkimov.jpg
As I wrote, just resave it at a lower JPG quality setting. I´ve used 80%.
silent_otto
11-09-05, 05:04 PM
Just to say... for me the problem about sigs is not the file size (this forums have always loaded great), and I see you bunch are polite in that sense, everyone tries to keep file size low.
What I don't like is having to scroll and scroll to read maybe just a few sentences... I was talking about screen "real estate" :-?
The Avon Lady
11-09-05, 05:18 PM
Your sig, only 5.2kb instead of 26kb. :)
http://home.arcor.de/gizzmoe/files/marhkimov.jpg
As I wrote, just resave it at a lower JPG quality setting. I´ve used 80%.
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/3929/03xf.jpg
gdogghenrikson
11-09-05, 06:56 PM
1&2 are broken links for me so I cant vote
Never mind I can see all pics now
Type941
11-10-05, 11:46 AM
Mine: 14177b
Markhimov´s: 26488b
Ps. Markhimov, I´m not saying that your sig is too big in size! :cool:
Marhkimov´s sig is only 6215 byte when you resave it at 85% quality. Most people simply don´t check the JPG quality setting, it´s a shame! Type941´s sig could also be more than 60% smaller in filesize, without any quality loss.
Some pictures look ok compressed, while others don't. Depends on color palette used. Marhimov's pic has red and black. He can make it much smaller quality, but keep it good looking. I can't do the same as it's too 'detailed' with stuff.
anyway, I also find picturs that take up half the page annoying, becuase they often repeat and it becomes 'in your face' type of thing. but that's just me.
Gizzmoe
11-10-05, 12:21 PM
I can't do the same as it's too 'detailed' with stuff.
You can!
Your original 26kB picture:
http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/4518/sunk0xn.jpg
9.6kB version:
http://home.arcor.de/gizzmoe/files/sunk0xn2.jpg
Resaved with Irfanview, 85% JPG quality, all "Keep original..." options unselected.
http://www.irfanview.com/
Marhkimov
11-10-05, 01:13 PM
Marhimov's pic has red and black. He can make it much smaller quality, but keep it good looking.
No, that's not really true. My newer sig loses a significant amount of quality if I put any compression on it. I like it sharp, so I decided on no compression at all. Instead, I made it smaller on the screen
-Saved with photoshop CS2, jpeg format at max 12 quality setting.
Type941
11-10-05, 01:18 PM
very cool. i used photoshop default compression. Thanks man. :)
Gizzmoe
11-10-05, 03:38 PM
No, that's not really true. My newer sig loses a significant amount of quality if I put any compression on it. I like it sharp, so I decided on no compression at all. Instead, I made it smaller on the screen
Your old sig was smaller (only 26kB IIRC), the new one is 31kB. Please don´t ignore our numerous 56k members...
Here´s the 56k-friendly version (6.2kB):
http://home.arcor.de/gizzmoe/files/marhkimov5.jpg
"Sharp" version (7kB):
http://home.arcor.de/gizzmoe/files/marhkimov53.jpg
The original 31kB version:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/hockeemaster/Signature%20Pics/marhkimov5.jpg
Marhkimov
11-10-05, 03:48 PM
Gizzmoe,
How did you compress it and still have it looking so sharp? You use Irfranview, right?
I use Photoshop, and even with zero quality setting, it is 22kb and ends up looking like crap. How can I get similar jpg compression with photoshop?
I do empathize with the 56k users. I will definately try to make a sig that is both economical and at the same time, nice.
Gizzmoe
11-10-05, 03:53 PM
How did you compress it and still have it looking so sharp? You use Irfranview, right?
Yes, Irfanview. The Photoshop JPG algorithm sucks.
I saved the first picture at 90% quality. For the second picture I´ve used the "sharp" filter, then saved at 90%.
How can I get similar jpg compression with photoshop?
I don´t know. But for pictures where size matters you can save it as BMP or TGA in Photoshop, then open it in Irfanview and save the JPG. It´s very important that you unselect the "Keep original..." marks in the JPG options screen, it removes unimportant non-image related informations from the JPG and makes it much, much smaller.
Marhkimov
11-10-05, 04:19 PM
Proud to report that I am fixed! :up:
Old Signature:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/hockeemaster/Signature%20Pics/marhkimov5.jpg
New one, down there...
Gizzmoe
11-10-05, 04:26 PM
Proud to report that I am fixed! :up:
And only 1/3 of the original size!!! :up: Irfanview or Photoshop?
Marhkimov
11-10-05, 04:31 PM
Irfanview. You are right, photoshop compression is terrible. I did as you suggested: saved it as a bmp, did image sharpening, tried 95%, and unchecked all of the label settings.
Works very well, with minimal loss of quality. :up:
I always prefer more compact sigs... If it can be done using less space, do it.
Look closely ==>>>http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/8683/00zd.jpg :rotfl: :rotfl:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.