Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
  Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 05:47 |
 
|
Why?
With a 95x145 png-24 file, regrettably, most pics are between 32k and 45k bytes.
That is, above the current 30k limit.
Why is this important?
Because png-24 format (the ferrari of web graphic formats) has a transparency alpha-canal,
making the portrait look like this (notice the smooth edges of the background plate):
However, this portrait is 33k bytes!
So instead, we are forced to use a gif, or a png-8, making it look like this:
Notice the white transparency clutter around the edges?
Raising the limit to 45k will literally open up a whole new world for player portraits.
Again:
 vs. 
NB! This clutter becomes much more visible once uploaded to the game client!
PS: The current logo file size has already been raised, and allows nice logos like those made my Mr_Foulscumm (this is 50k):
 |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 06:37 |
|
you know...i've uploaded a metric crapton of images for player photos...
....
and i've never once had a problem with the size cap...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
Overhamsteren
Joined: May 27, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 07:47 |
|
Can't really see the difference. (15" screen) |
_________________
Like a Tiger Defying the Laws of Gravity
Thanks to the BBRC for all the great work you did. |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 08:05 |
|
| shadow46x2 wrote: | | metric crapton of images |
if you check some of your team yearbooks, you will notice how all the default player pictures (those made by knut_rockie and ryanfitz) are between 33k and 45k bytes. |
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 16:18 |
|
Would love to see this change. Almost any png file with transparency will bust the k limit. |
_________________
 |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 16:31 |
|
| Overhamsteren wrote: | | Can't really see the difference. (15" screen) |
i'm on a 23" screen....and can't see the difference...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
|
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 16:31 |
|
I use .jpgs for player pics. I have no issue with pic size. I use .gifs for logos, as they support transparency, and I've never had issues with quality.
I also don't use Monster cables for my sound system, and that Quottro (or whatever it is) 4-color HDTV doesn't look any better to me. I guess I'm not an A/V snob  |
|
|
tattie5
Joined: Dec 08, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 16:32 |
|
I cant see any diffrence with the pics. I dont think i am ready for FUMBBL HD just yet |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 16:35 |
|
pics looks identical to me. |
_________________
 |
|
Collins254
Joined: Jun 25, 2011
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 16:40 |
|
The lower quality are slightly lighter, its barely noticeable however, but you dont need a hd screen to see that, im on a 14" screen atm but iv checked and can see the difference on my 5" phone screen.
But i dont really see the problem. Atleast you can still use the pics. |
_________________
Its all fun and games until someone gets killed by a snotling! |
|
Calcium
Joined: Apr 08, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 16:49 |
|
No difference to me, sorry. |
_________________
 |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 17:08 |
|
I can't see any difference, but perhaps it is because everything looks beautiful on my MacBook Air...  |
_________________
|
|
WhatBall
Joined: Aug 21, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 17:32 |
|
The difference is that with gifs you end up with white pixel crap around transparent fades. pngs don't have this. These are not the best examples to show, especially against the light background. |
_________________
|
|
Mr_Foulscumm
Joined: Mar 05, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 18:12 |
|
There is a good reason to have a cap to how big the images can be. File sizes adds up when you have to download 11-17 images for a specific team. Also, I know for a fact that most people don't know how to or care about optimizing their images, leading to wasted server space (which might not be an actual issue depending on the server in question, but waste is waste).
It might not be a big deal for people with great connections, but if you're like me and have to send your abacus calculations via pigeon to the local telegraph station, keeping file sizes as small as possible is a must. After all there are only so many pounds of paper print out a normal sized country pigeon can carry in one go.
With logos, it's a different case because there will never be more than 2, so slightly bigger sizes is ok.
I could for instance have cut down around 40k from the logo you used as an example with minor losses in quality.
vs
Now, since people will see this image all the time, I decided to up the file size so that we wouldn't get the jagged edges. But it's still acceptable.
Now, your images would work just as well as .gif files and you wouldn't get the white boarder issues and make the files smaller without losing actual image quality. Yes, .png is sexy, but you don't need to use it.
Just to show what I mean:
vs
Your file is 35k and the one I added is 6.5k. You don't get the partly transparent shadow behind the card and you do get slight pixelation but the image being square make this far less of an issue than it is with the fly logo. A totally acceptable result with minimal waste.
| WhatBall wrote: | | The difference is that with gifs you end up with white pixel crap around transparent fades. pngs don't have this. These are not the best examples to show, especially against the light background. |
gifs don't give you a white transparency edge. Png-8 does however. But the upping in file size vs the resultant quality gain between the formats is negligible. Png is great, but it's not always the best solution. Gif is the king of bulk uploads. |
_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL |
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 20, 2011 - 18:23 |
|
Well computer power, hard disk space and internet speed increase rapidly all the time. I don't see why image size limits can't be revisited every now and again, that they should be set say in 2003 and left at the same value no matter how much faster everything is (not sure that was when the limit was set). I really doubt that images from FUMBBL are filling up Christer's server. |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
