Larger Avatars

JayMan · June 17th, 2003, 08:33 AM

I've just been playing around trying to create a new avatar for myself... And i think the 64x64 size limit make its too difficult to get any detail in it...

My suggestion would be to allow (if not everybody) atleast ultimate members (1000+ posts) to have larger avatars.

128x128 would be the ultimate... But i understand some people might find that too big on their screen (so they have to scroll alittle more... Wouldn't wanna wear out the mouse now would we...). SO even 96x96 would be great!

The file size limit of 10000bytes is still ok, but if that could be raised slightly too (say 15000bytes) that would be excellent aswell. Altho PLEASE NOTE: I am quite happy to stay with the 10k limits as what i mainly want is the option for slightly higher res.

So everyone can see what the difference is between 128x128, 96x96 and 64x64 i have now attached and image with all 3, of the same avatar next to each other... Notice the 64x64 looks blurry on the letters, also the spacing seems alittle off, and ya can't really make out that its a picture of a car.

JayMan

JayMan · June 17th, 2003, 08:36 AM

Edit: this post can be deleted as i have edited the above post, making this one not necisarry... (would be good if i could spell too..)

JayMan

tmx468 · June 17th, 2003, 08:54 AM

I think anything above 96x96 would be too large... but it is an interesting idea!
I know that the small size is why I am still without...

Theophylact · June 17th, 2003, 09:28 AM

Think of 64X64 as an artistic constraint, like the sonnet form; don't try to make an epic out of it.

Creatures · June 17th, 2003, 09:52 AM

64x64 is perfect because the size limit 10kb is already small and if you want a animation with 96x96 you'll get two pictures!

Creatures

RedFury · June 17th, 2003, 09:53 AM

I agree with Theo. Dial up users have it bad enough having a bunch of avatars to load in the first place.

I like the idea of seeing who can cram the most avatar into the smallest possible space.

Besides, start giving people bigger avatars, and they'll start wanting even BIGGER avatars.

JayMan · June 17th, 2003, 10:17 AM

Creatures, not everyone wants animated avatars. For the people who want animated they can stick with the 64x64, there is nothing stopping ya from even using a 32x32 if ya wanted lotsa frames.... But i think it would be nice for people who don't want animated stuff to have the option to go with a slightly larger avatar.

Red, notice i said the 10000byte limit is fine with me, don't matter if an image is 64x64 or 1024x1024, if the file size is still 10000bytes it will take the same amount of time to load... (obvisouly 1024x1024 is abit large for an avatar, but i was just using that to show my point).

So maybe 128x128 is gonna be alittle too big (i realise not everyone runs 1280x1024), so what about 96x96....

I myself am stuck on a max of 28.8k connection, most of the time i actually get about 24k, so i'm one of those dial up users your talking about, and i don't think the load times are bad at all to be honest.

JayMan

Ritalin Kid · June 17th, 2003, 10:27 AM

I'm all for it as long as the server can handle it..

tmx468 · June 17th, 2003, 10:31 AM

Well, I have bitten the bullet, and given myself an avatar (it looked so much better full screen

)... I suppose it was about time...

Xpander · June 17th, 2003, 10:42 AM

it'd be worse if the forum limited avatars at 50x50. 65x65 is a nice size, 100x100 is usually too big for whatever i choose to create and anything over that would crowd up the screen and give me problems on my dinky 56k modem. There's a forum i post at with 80x80 limitations and i think that's a good size for having bigger avvies but not as much bandwidth problems or size issues.