Can We Get Some Bigger Avatars?

[Vito_Corleone]

At least 100x100? Preferably 150x150? Is this a possibility?

[Zate]

no and heres why not.

80x80 = 6400 pixels.. @ 24 bits per pixel is 153,600 bits. or 19,200 bytes. divide by 1024 is a max of 18.75 kb per image. Multiply that by 30,000 users and it could possibly take up 550 mb of space. Not a huge amount, but sizable. No it doesnt take up that much, but it could.

now, 150x150 is 22,500 pixels.. .@ 24 bits is 5.4 million bits.. thats 67,500 bytes or 66 kb per image. 66 x 30,000 is 1931 mb, or almost 2 gb.

A big increase.

The other factor is the style was created with that size avatar in mind.

If my math is wrong, let me know.

[Vito_Corleone]

no and heres why not.

80x80 = 6400 pixels.. @ 24 bits per pixel is 153,600 bits. or 19,200 bytes. divide by 1024 is a max of 18.75 kb per image. Multiply that by 30,000 users and it could possibly take up 550 mb of space. Not a huge amount, but sizable. No it doesnt take up that much, but it could.

now, 150x150 is 22,500 pixels.. .@ 24 bits is 5.4 million bits.. thats 67,500 bytes or 66 kb per image. 66 x 30,000 is 1931 mb, or almost 2 gb.

A big increase.

The other factor is the style was created with that size avatar in mind.

If my math is wrong, let me know.

Hmm. I see your point, but you also have the max file size for avatars at 133kb, is your math definitive? Is it impossible to get higher than the maxes you've set? If so, the max size for avatars is a really pointless number, lol. I really don't know, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Another thing though, you guys have the TR gallery set to unlimited, so I can stick as much shit in there as I want, isn't that worse than having a set limit for avatar size?

And, the style thing makes sense as well, I guess, but most other forums I'm on have much larger avatar sizes and they are using Vbulletin as well.

[Vito_Corleone]

Just to illustrate how much space we're NOT using, I've made this pic:

http://www.tamparacing.com/photopost/data/500/space1.jpg

I have no real sig, so I did not the height on there since it's subjective anyway. Oh, I shrunk my resolution to 1024x768 for that picture too as it's the most common these days.

Ps. That image is hosted in my TR gallery with a barrage of other pictures taking up lots of space.:D

Edit: I left something important out. That space is 102 pixels by itself, not including the size of my avatar.

[Vito_Corleone]

Anyone?

http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/tear.gif

[Josh]

Anyone?

http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/tear.gif

:lol: 100 x 100 would be cool

[Vito_Corleone]

150x150 would be even cooler.

[Josh]

no doubt, but we may have to take what we can get.....if the somehow made it a requirement to host the avatar yourself elsewhere or post it in your gallery maybe?

[Vito_Corleone]

You can do that already, you just have it parse from a URL. That's fine with me, we just need the 80x80 restriction moved higher.

[POLLO]

No cholby.

[LilBit]

Freakin Colby... Thinkin he can have everything he wants... :roll: :lol:

[Aharon]

Disk space is cheap compared to bandwidth. While we allow unlimited uploads to the galleries, the current avatar size probably uses more bandwidth then the gallery already. I will play with the avatar sizes when I get a free moment someday and see how they look.

[Vito_Corleone]

Thanks, Aharon!

[Vito_Corleone]

To conserve bandwidth and help cover or at least offset the cost, you could implement the subscription service that has been talked about forever. I'd pay a few bucks a month to help out the site and have a bigger avatar.

[Angry Pirate]

Good question.

Maybe if we link it to an off-site place, like imagesocket or photobucket, would that help conserve space?

(I'm part of another forum that makes us do that, we can't upload it directly to the server, but are able to linky it, and our avatar's are able to be 125x300 and no more than 239KB)