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:

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.

Oh, it looks like it was in colour. :D

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.

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/a1...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

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.

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%.

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" :-?

1&2 are broken links for me so I cant vote


Never mind I can see all pics now

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.

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/

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.

very cool. i used photoshop default compression. Thanks man. :)