Attention: All Jeepz.com Members, Yea that means you! hehehe

[Tug-n-pull]

Dear valued members, On behalf of many users that are limited to Dial Up Service, May I ask you all to please keep you Signature pics to a minium size. The use of such large pics are to say the least clogging up the band for these members. Many times the pics are so large they start to root out the text blocks. Folks please refrain from this action and if you are currently useing a large pic please down size the thing. Thanks very much for you help in this matter. Tug :wink:

If you need info go under Fourm Related ehading and click on the sticky post "how to post pics"

 

[far_right]

i know my pic of josh is rather large, but i dont know how to crop it or anything, if someone can resize it for me i will be happy to make it smaller

 

[Tug-n-pull]

Just pull up your image on sonyimagestation.com and click on the pic then click on the edit image and follow the normal steps to get it done. If you can not figure it osut I will be glat to help. You can also take a copy of it to you photo edit program on your PC and edit it there and upload it again as a smaller file I think. 1st way would be much ezer. tug

 

[far_right]

jps4jeep, you'd be proud of me...

thanks...ill try it

 

[Inspector-Gadget]

Hello Tug,

The sig picture size problem has been raised from time to time, and it is my opinion that it will continue to be raised until such time as someone finally defines the "large" problem and the solution with specificity.

By "large," are we talking screen display size of a sig pic in pixels or inches?

Or...

By "large," are we talking the file size of a sig pic in terms of bytes?

Or...

Are we talking sig pic screen display size AND byte count?

Excessive file size and/or picture display dimensions will individually and collectively cause problems.

For example, a sig pic of reasonable display size (say less than 300 x 300 pixels, as previously suggested by PAsmokeater) but of super-high resolution -- and consequently large file size -- will result in long download times for the dial-up user because of the amount of data being transferred.

As a second example, a low resolution picture can be of large screen display size, yet of a low byte count. That solves the data transfer time problem, but now the offset problem rears it head. The offset problem being where the reader must manually scroll from left and right and back in order to read down a thread.

As a third example, a sig pic might be excessively large in terms of BOTH byte count and screen display dimensions. The result then is long data transfer times AND the offset problem.

Tug, I would suggest that until such time as sig pic maximum screen display size AND maximum byte count are specified, you are forever doomed to issue sig pic downsize requests.

A possible solution: Somebody needs to lay out the sig pic criteria with clarity. Perhaps as follows: "A sig pic shall not be larger the "x by x" pixels/inches AND not larger than "y" bytes.

The criteria for maximum display size and maximum file size need to be specified.

Respectfully submitted,

Gadget

 

[Tug-n-pull]

Gadget you are a good man and would be such a great moderator. I know you have declined but you would be such a breath of fresh air. Yes you are right as to the guide lines needing to be set. I do not understand all the hopla of pix size ect.. and so on but some one will figure it out and set the standards in deed. As for my simple mind I will just say this please reduce you file size to help out the folks with Dial Up Accounts folks. You know what to do just do it. Respectfully Yours Tug

 

[TwistedCU]

Done

 

[Tug-n-pull]

Thanks man! tug

 

[Craig]

Ok, I resized mine, I hope it's small enough. It's about as small as I could make it before the picture started going all distorted for some reason.

 

[Snitty]

remember as well.. you don't have to reduce the entire picture. there may be a sig pic that shows a jeep with a large surrounding area... if the area is not an important part of the picture, you can crop only the jeep, that will make for a smaller picture, and will keep the same quality of the pic...

 

[graewulf]

Excessive file size and/or picture display dimensions will individually and collectively cause problems.

For example, a sig pic of reasonable display size (say less than 300 x 300 pixels, as previously suggested by PAsmokeater) but of super-high resolution -- and consequently large file size -- will result in long download times for the dial-up user because of the amount of data being transferred.

As a second example, a low resolution picture can be of large screen display size, yet of a low byte count. That solves the data transfer time problem, but now the offset problem rears it head. The offset problem being where the reader must manually scroll from left and right and back in order to read down a thread.

Respectfully submitted,

Gadget

gadget, you are a tad bit misinformed.... a high resolution picture will have a high pixel count (ex: 1024x768) and have a large screen size, this is what makes it high resolution....they are directly related. what results in a large file is an UNCOMPRESSED file... as an example, a 300x300 tif image will be well over 1meg, the same picture (at the same resolution) as a bmp will be around 60k, and a jpg with high compression will be about 10k... the picture will be the exact same resolution in all 3 cases and display the same size on screen, but the file size (and corresponding download times) will vary considerably. realistically, a sig pic in the 300x300 or smaller range is just fine. actually too big, taking almost 1/4 of the average screen. a low res picture (300x300 is low res) will not necessarily be small, if not compressed. i have some pics posted on my pages that are 640x480 (medium resolution), and only about 40-60k in size because i used high compression.

 

[Inspector-Gadget]

Why would this be a sticky post?

Hello graewulf,

Thank you for the reply. It was very interesting and...illuminating.

graewulf, I will prepare and post a detailed reply. While I prepare that reply, I will respectfully ask you to ponder the following questions:

(1) Are you are approaching the problem from the perspective of a photographer or graphic artist/designer or the perspective of a long-haul transmission facilities specialist, and which perspective would be the more appropriate by way of dealing with the problem at hand?

(2) Are you confusing picture "x" and "y" dimensions, as measured and stated in pixels, with picture depth or resolution, as measured and stated in pixels per square-inch?

(3) Are you somehow intermixing picture compression schemes with the various long-haul data transmission compression schemes?

Regards,

Gadget

 

[graewulf]

Hello graewulf,

Thank you for the reply. It was very interesting and...illuminating.

graewulf, I will prepare and post a detailed reply. While I prepare that reply, I will respectfully ask you to ponder the following questions:

(1) Are you are approaching the problem from the perspective of a photographer or graphic artist/designer or the perspective of a long-haul transmission facilities specialist, and which perspective would be the more appropriate by way of dealing with the problem at hand?

(2) Are you confusing picture "x" and "y" dimensions, as measured and stated in pixels, with picture depth or resolution, as measured and stated in pixels per square-inch?

(3) Are you somehow intermixing picture compression schemes with the various long-haul data transmission compression schemes?

Regards,

Gadget

gadget, i'm a computer geek by trade and amateur photographer.... and i design web sites, so i understand digital photos and their relative sizes quite well. pixels are pixels on screen... pixels per square inch only apply to the printed picture. We're not talking chemical prints here, we're talking digital photos and the practicality of posting them, not publishing a glossy magazine.

 

[Inspector-Gadget]

1997 jeep wrangler idle problems

OK graewulf,

I asked questions by way of attempting to setup a common ground from which we could begin to discuss and negotiate this issue. It might have evolved into an interesting and informative thread. I see now, however, that the approach is not going to work.

You chose not to answer my questions, but chose instead to provide a resume.

Apparently you are convinced that your background as a computer geek (As if you are the only one in the world.) not to mention your experience as an amateur photographer (As if you are the only one in the world.) and your web site designer experience (As if you are the only one in the world.) entitles you to issue edicts from on high that are to be unquestioned by the masses.

Given that intractable attitude, I choose to disengage. I can see that this thread is headed for one of those pointless debates that will succeed only in causing thousands of eyes to glaze over. I choose to not participate.

The bottom line remains: if it is desired to solve the download time problem for dial-up users, set sig pic maximums or disallow sig pics.

Regards,

Gadget

 

[Bounty__Hunter]

graewulf, what would you recommend for parameters of sig pics that would not adversely slow down jeepz.com forums?

 

[Snitty]

I would suggest a 250-300 max height and around a 500-600 maximum width for dimensions, and about a 25-50k max for filesize... i realize there is no way to regulate this, like there is for the avatar, but.. of course, we can all check it and address it when the case arises

 

[Tug-n-pull]

I am not a computer geek nor a photo mat emplyee but I can answer this riddle, make your pics smaller! hehe

 

[TerryMason]

I'm leaning towards 400 px wide, by 200 px high, with a total filesize under 30k. How's that sound to you guys?

 

[XJNick]

Terry, that sounds good, but I'd lean on going closer to 150 pixels for signature pic height. Maybe like 175 pixels or so? Also, 28KB sounds good as a max.

-Nick :!:

 

[graewulf]

OK graewulf,

I asked questions by way of attempting to setup a common ground from which we could begin to discuss and negotiate this issue. It might have evolved into an interesting and informative thread. I see now, however, that the approach is not going to work.

You chose not to answer my questions, but chose instead to provide a resume.

Apparently you are convinced that your background as a computer geek (As if you are the only one in the world.) not to mention your experience as an amateur photographer (As if you are the only one in the world.) and your web site designer experience (As if you are the only one in the world.) entitles you to issue edicts from on high that are to be unquestioned by the masses.

Given that intractable attitude, I choose to disengage. I can see that this thread is headed for one of those pointless debates that will succeed only in causing thousands of eyes to glaze over. I choose to not participate.

The bottom line remains: if it is desired to solve the download time problem for dial-up users, set sig pic maximums or disallow sig pics.

Regards,

Gadget

is he speaking english??? or reading a dictionary? i did answer the questions.... and i was attempting to stop any argument, obviously you just are looking for one... whatever.. its not worth wasting the bandwidth on....