I`m a sig addict! Help me choose the one to use! - Page 2

Type941 · 11-09-05, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Quote:

Originally Posted by marhkimov

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.

Dowly · 11-09-05, 04:24 PM

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, MarkhimovÂ´s.

Mine: 14177b

MarkhimovÂ´s: 26488b

Ps. Markhimov, IÂ´m not saying that your sig is too big in size!

Gizzmoe · 11-09-05, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Mine: 14177b

MarkhimovÂ´s: 26488b

Ps. Markhimov, IÂ´m not saying that your sig is too big in size!

MarhkimovÂ´s sig is only 6215 byte when you resave it at 85% quality. Most people simply donÂ´t check the JPG quality setting, itÂ´s a shame! Type941Â´s sig could also be more than 60% smaller in filesize, without any quality loss.

martes86 · 11-09-05, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Hehe, yep. ItÂ´s the Gibraltar scene. I just made it black & white.

Oh, it looks like it was in colour.

silent_otto · 11-09-05, 04:38 PM

Quote:

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

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).

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).

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...

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.

As I wrote, just resave it at a lower JPG quality setting. IÂ´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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Your sig, only 5.2kb instead of 26kb.

As I wrote, just resave it at a lower JPG quality setting. IÂ´ve used 80%.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Mine: 14177b

MarkhimovÂ´s: 26488b

Ps. Markhimov, IÂ´m not saying that your sig is too big in size!

MarhkimovÂ´s sig is only 6215 byte when you resave it at 85% quality. Most people simply donÂ´t check the JPG quality setting, itÂ´s a shame! Type941Â´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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Type941

I can't do the same as it's too 'detailed' with stuff.

You can!

Your original 26kB picture:

9.6kB version:

Resaved with Irfanview, 85% JPG quality, all "Keep original..." options unselected.

http://www.irfanview.com/

Marhkimov · 11-10-05, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Type941

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.

View Poll Results: Which sig I should use?
1)	2	6.06%
2)	3	9.09%
3)	3	9.09%
4)	11	33.33%
5)	14	42.42%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

11-09-05, 04:43 PM	#21
Marhkimov Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bay Area, California, USA Posts: 2,377 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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). 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). 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... __________________ It takes two to tango

11-09-05, 04:50 PM	#22
Marhkimov Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bay Area, California, USA Posts: 2,377 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ It takes two to tango

11-09-05, 06:56 PM	#26
gdogghenrikson Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 978 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	1&2 are broken links for me so I cant vote Never mind I can see all pics now __________________ And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown.

11-10-05, 01:18 PM	#30
Type941 Ace of the Deep Join Date: May 2005 Location: U-52 Posts: 1,270 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	very cool. i used photoshop default compression. Thanks man. __________________ Sink the Bismarck SH3 Movie

11-09-05, 04:24 PM	#17
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,054 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	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, MarkhimovÂ´s. Mine: 14177b MarkhimovÂ´s: 26488b Ps. Markhimov, IÂ´m not saying that your sig is too big in size!

11-09-05, 04:54 PM	#23
Gizzmoe Silent Hunter Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 3,668 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	Your sig, only 5.2kb instead of 26kb. As I wrote, just resave it at a lower JPG quality setting. IÂ´ve used 80%.

11-09-05, 05:04 PM	#24
silent_otto Seaman Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Galiza - BF 79 Posts: 33 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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"