Avatar Changes

[Rawhide]

As of now, you will no longer be required to enter in the width and height of avatars (which means also that you will no longer be required to instruct people on how to do that).



HOWEVER

You will still only be able to use an avatar that is 120x120. Avatars larger than that that had previously been set to a lower value and manually shrunk using the width and height values will now "overflow" into a "hidden" area.
This is only to ensure formatting is preserved, please do not allow this to happen!

This will break some current avatars that will need to be resized.



REMEMBER

File size restrictions still apply.

[Lord Loss]

Can we keep a somewhat oversized avatar 120 x121 if it looks adequate and we cannot find a suitably sized version of said avatar?

[Rawhide]

Can we keep a somewhat oversized avatar 120 x121 if it looks adequate and we cannot find a suitably sized version of said avatar?

Do you have the legal right to use the image as an avatar (i.e. not a copyright violation) and is it hosted at a site that states it allows hotlinking?

[Another_Poet]

Oh noes... my avatar just died :(

I'll work on fixing it. Thanks for the explanation Rawhide.

[Lord Loss]

Do you have the legal right to use the image as an avatar (i.e. not a copyright violation) and is it hosted at a site that states it allows hotlinking?

I'm not quite sure. Looking, however, it is on a Wikia site, so I presume it is fine.

[Flame of Anor]

Can we keep a somewhat oversized avatar 120 x121 if it looks adequate and we cannot find a suitably sized version of said avatar?

Seriously, just open it in MS Paint, chop a pixel off, then upload it on Photobucket.

[Lord Loss]

Seriously, just open it in MS Paint, chop a pixel off, then upload it on Photobucket.

oh okay. Wasn't aware I could do that. Computer-fu fail.

Will change sometime today or tomorrow.

[TheLaughingMan]

Well this is inconvenient.

[Kobold-Bard]

Oh noes... my avatar just died :(

I'll work on fixing it. Thanks for the explanation Rawhide.

I noticed yours as well as a couple of others and thought it was a new trend. Guess not :smalltongue:

Why was this change brought about out of curiosity?

[Blue Ghost]

What will happen to smaller avatars?

[NEO|Phyte]

What will happen to smaller avatars?

Nothing, as they fit within the 120x120 limit.

[Haruki-kun]

So my 117x117 avatars are all fine?

EDIT: Well, it looks fine....

[Lord Fullbladder, Master of Goblins]

Okay, os it's just the maximum is still 120x120. Everything below that just follows what the image does, so I don't have a horde of screaming people hounding me for making their avatars thin. This is good.

[sciencepanda]

Ah, so this is why my avatar went all wonky looking.

*sigh*

I guess I will get to making a new one.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I'm not quite sure. Looking, however, it is on a Wikia site, so I presume it is fine.
Should be more sure than just presumptions. Avatars aren’t covered under fair use.

Don’t most wiki sites have a use justification for the images they use? If the image is public domain, you should be fine. If it has any copyright, then you aren’t.


Seriously, just open it in MS Paint, chop a pixel off, then upload it on Photobucket.
That’d actually be 120 pixels that need chopping off. :smalltongue:


Why was this change brought about out of curiosity?
Well, it would give users motivation to actually use proper size avatars rather than make other people’s browsers resize the avatar. It’ll reduce page load time for users and reduce bandwidth for the server hosting the image. That’s why I’ve been planning on using that in the forum software I’m developing, anyway. :smallwink:

Could also reduce layout quirks where one person’s author-info box is noticeably narrower than everyone else’s, I think.


So my 117x117 avatars are all fine?
Yeah. Instead of squeezing or stretching an image into a specific-size box, it’s simply putting everyone’s avatar into the same size box, which automatically crops the image. Of course, the entire image must still be downloaded by the users’ browsers, so it’s still important to obey the size limit, even if you don’t mind or even notice the cropping.

[Dvandemon]

Well this is inconvenient.

Not so, just resize it. In some way it's more convenient given that I had to open MS Paint and check the attributes

[GenPol]

Ah, ok, so that's what's happened. I'd better get started fixing that then, my avatar is... slightly larger... :smalltongue:

[Kobold-Bard]

Not so, just resize it. In some way it's more convenient given that I had to open MS Paint and check the attributes

How is having to do something you didn't hve to do before more convenient?

[Rawhide]

Images used for avatars should all be the correct size. You should not have used the dimension fields to resize the images (not a board rule, of course, but a rule of good HTML).

There are now two less fields (width and height), which both change for every avatar created, to worry about. As long as the image you would like to use is of the correct size (120 by 120 or less), you no longer have to identify the width and height of an avatar image nor do you have to set or change it (resulting in stretched images when you get it incorrectly or forget).

In some cases this is less convenient (people were inappropriately using the width and height fields to resize an image and will now need to resize the source image) but in most ways this is more convenient for more people.

[Lord Loss]

There, all fixed up (I think) and saved on photobucket...

[NerfTW]

I'm not quite sure. Looking, however, it is on a Wikia site, so I presume it is fine.

Hot linking to an image on a site you don't have control over is bad for two reasons.

First, you're stealing bandwith from the site owner. They're paying every time that image is downloaded. Especially if you're taking a massive image and jamming it into a 120x120 box.


Second, and most important to you, you have no control over the image. Mods generally don't take "I didn't know they replaced my icon with hardcore porn" as an excuse. And that IS done quite often when someone discovers a person hotlinking their images.

Always use your own hosting service, or something like Photobucket.

[Defiant]

In some cases this is less convenient (people were inappropriately using the width and height fields to resize an image and will now need to resize the source image) but in most ways this is more convenient for more people.

This, I found, was the most convenient aspect of avatar placement (would have only been overshadowed if there were an option to upload avatars directly). No longer would I have to keep resizing my image until it was the appropriate size: the board did it for me, as it should be able to.

[Lord Loss]

Hot linking to an image on a site you don't have control over is bad for two reasons.

First, you're stealing bandwith from the site owner. They're paying every time that image is downloaded. Especially if you're taking a massive image and jamming it into a 120x120 box.


Second, and most important to you, you have no control over the image. Mods generally don't take "I didn't know they replaced my icon with hardcore porn" as an excuse. And that IS done quite often when someone discovers a person hotlinking their images.

Always use your own hosting service, or something like Photobucket.

i found my current image (same pic different source) on photobucket with a good size and saved it onto my photobucket without modifying it in any way.

[TheLaughingMan]

This, I found, was the most convenient aspect of avatar placement (would have only been overshadowed if there were an option to upload avatars directly). No longer would I have to keep resizing my image until it was the appropriate size: the board did it for me, as it should be able to.

Agreed. I hate having to bring up Photoshop every time I want to change avatars.

[Elder Tsofu]

Agreed. I hate having to bring up Photoshop every time I want to change avatars.

Just curious - was that sarcasm?

[TheLaughingMan]

Nah. I have to Photoshop on my father's computer (still a teenager), send it back to my computer, post it on TinyPic, copy the HTML, come back here, and hope it fits so I don't have to start the process over again (never fits).

[Zherog]

If all you're doing is resizing, why not just bring the image up in MS Paint?

[TheLaughingMan]

Don't own a Microsoft.

[NerfTW]

Don't own a Microsoft.

Photoshop is still not necessary. That's like putting a nuclear engine on your bike. There's plenty of other choices. Every OS has a basic image editing program built into it.

[Catch]

Nah. I have to Photoshop on my father's computer (still a teenager), send it back to my computer, post it on TinyPic, copy the HTML, come back here, and hope it fits so I don't have to start the process over again (never fits).


Don't own a Microsoft.

I saved your avatar, opened it in GIMP, resized it, and uploaded it to ImageShack. Done in less than 30 seconds and I'm not using Windows either.

Here you go, champ:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/384/2lid2zr.jpg

[The Rose Dragon]

Photoshop is still not necessary. That's like putting a nuclear engine on your bike. There's plenty of other choices. Every OS has a basic image editing program built into it.

Even Mac OS X? Cause I can't seem to find it on mine. :smalltongue:

Then again, there are several freeware image manipulation programs for Mac OS X, such as Inkscape.

[TheLaughingMan]

Why do all the nice people decide to show me up?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

This, I found, was the most convenient aspect of avatar placement (would have only been overshadowed if there were an option to upload avatars directly). No longer would I have to keep resizing my image until it was the appropriate size: the board did it for me, as it should be able to.
But the board never actually changed your image. I would just end up telling other people’s browsers to download one larger-than-necessary file and then to squish it themselves. At that point you wind up putting your convenience ahead of the convenience of everyone else, especially those with slow internet connections.


i found my current image (same pic different source) on photobucket with a good size and saved it onto my photobucket without modifying it in any way.
And have you verified the copyright status of this Photobucket pic? Legally, you can’t just use any picture you happened to find on the internet.


Even Mac OS X? Cause I can't seem to find it on mine. :smalltongue:
Preview.

It’s not a Paint program, but it is an image editor. Go under Tools -> Adjust Size.

If you want a lightweight Paint program, you may be able to find a small Freeware application on the Apple downloads site.

[Defiant]

But the board never actually changed your image. I would just end up telling other people’s browsers to download one larger-than-necessary file and then to squish it themselves. At that point you wind up putting your convenience ahead of the convenience of everyone else, especially those with slow internet connections.

That makes sense then. I assumed the board would be capable of resizing an image.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

That makes sense then. I assumed the board would be capable of resizing an image.
It would be capable, if the board actually hosted the image. But as the board never actually sees the image file, it can’t. All this board ever sees is the image’s address.

[Defiant]

It would be capable, if the board actually hosted the image. But as the board never actually sees the image file, it can’t. All this board ever sees is the image’s address.

Which, I guess, is why it isn't even capable of uploading avatars directly from a computer... :smallsigh:

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Which, I guess, is why it isn't even capable of uploading avatars directly from a computer... :smallsigh:
Well, I’m sure vBulletin is capable. It’s just disabled. :smallwink:

But, yeah, that’s part of it.

[Rawhide]

This, I found, was the most convenient aspect of avatar placement (would have only been overshadowed if there were an option to upload avatars directly). No longer would I have to keep resizing my image until it was the appropriate size: the board did it for me, as it should be able to.

Images are not resized by the server, they never were. All the width and height fields did was tell everyone's browser what size to display the image as. Everyone's browser would then have to download the entire large image and stretch or squash the image.

It is not possible for the server to resize the images itself, as the images are not transferred to or stored on the server. All the server sees is the URL to the picture you would like to use which it transmits to everyone's browser for the browser to find and download.

---

There is absolutely no reason to use Photoshop or similar programs to perform simple tasks such as resizing an image, nor do you need to be using a Microsoft operating system.

Almost any simple image conversion, editing or manipulation program will do the trick. Most operating systems even come with one by default and some image hosting sites will also do it during or after upload. I highly, highly recommend XnView (http://xnview.com/en/xnview.html), free and available for Windows, Mac, Linux, PocketPC, etc, etc.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

…some image hosting sites will also do it during or after upload.
Dang, yeah. I forgot about that. When it comes to resizing, you don’t even need an image editing program these days.

[Cealocanth]

Good to know. Although I think this opens up a new need to instruct that the overflow occurs when it's too large now.

[Dvandemon]

How is having to do something you didn't hve to do before more convenient?

I don't follow you

[Defiant]

I don't follow you

Don't have to do anything, and things are the way they are
-> not inconvenient

Have to do something to keep things the way they were before
-> at least marginally more inconvenient

[happyturtle]

Good to know. Although I think this opens up a new need to instruct that the overflow occurs when it's too large now.

Like... a thread opened by the moderators perhaps? Maybe they could title it 'Avatar Changes'. :smallwink:

[Nevitan]

Even Mac OS X? Cause I can't seem to find it on mine. :smalltongue:

Then again, there are several freeware image manipulation programs for Mac OS X, such as Inkscape.

You can do a good deal of basic editing with just preview. Just open the image and go to tools.

[Arcanoi]

I'm not really sure where to ask this, but this seemed the best place.

Does anyone know what the RGB, Hue, Saturation, and Lumination color values are for the sidebar where the Avatars appear?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Does anyone know what the RGB, Hue, Saturation, and Lumination color values are for the sidebar where the Avatars appear?
Uh, where are you seeing this? That’s not on the board.

And RGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model) and HSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSL_and_HSV) are a color model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_model) for defining colors on computer monitors.

[Douglas]

Uh, where are you seeing this? That’s not on the board.

And RGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model) and HSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSL_and_HSV) are a color model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_model) for defining colors on computer monitors.
I think he's asking what the color of the background is so he can match it with his avatar's background, not wondering about some strange board settings.

To (sort of) answer the question: I don't know, but you really don't need to in order to do what you want. Your avatar is a png, and png format supports transparency. Make the background transparent, and it should get the effect you want.

[AmberVael]

I'm not really sure where to ask this, but this seemed the best place.

Does anyone know what the RGB, Hue, Saturation, and Lumination color values are for the sidebar where the Avatars appear?

The hexadecimal code you are looking for is: #f0e7d3

R: 240
G: 231
B: 211

Hue: 29
Saturation: 125
Luminosity: 226

That said, just using a transparent background is much easier.

[Dvandemon]

Don't have to do anything, and things are the way they are
-> not inconvenient

Have to do something to keep things the way they were before
-> at least marginally more inconvenient

No I mean what do we have to do that we didn't have to before?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I think he's asking what the color of the background is so he can match it with his avatar's background, not wondering about some strange board settings.
Ah, that makes more sense. And that’s clearer now that I re-read the question.

If you know HTML and CSS, its easy to find this sort of thing out by using your browser as the source code.


The hexadecimal code you are looking for is: #f0e7d3

R: 240
G: 231
B: 211

Hue: 29
Saturation: 125
Luminosity: 226

That said, just using a transparent background is much easier.
But if, for some reason, you must use one of these, stick with defining it by RGB. That’s the method the browsers use, so it will cut down conversion errors.

[Cealocanth]

I'm not really sure where to ask this, but this seemed the best place.

Does anyone know what the RGB, Hue, Saturation, and Lumination color values are for the sidebar where the Avatars appear?

I was talking about when newbies itp PM you complaining about how their avatar is broken, you now have to tell them.

[Rawhide]

I was talking about when newbies itp PM you complaining about how their avatar is broken, you now have to tell them.

As opposed to telling them how to find and set the width and height? Plus, you really should not have been creating avatars larger than 120x120 anyway.

[Quincunx]

I'm not really sure where to ask this, but this seemed the best place.

Does anyone know what the RGB, Hue, Saturation, and Lumination color values are for the sidebar where the Avatars appear?

Someone recommended the Colorzilla plug-in for Firefox. It makes your cursor into a color reader, giving the output for the color it hovers over in all sorts of measurements. Makes it easy to nab any color from the site and make very unobtrusive avatars.

[NerfTW]

Someone recommended the Colorzilla plug-in for Firefox. It makes your cursor into a color reader, giving the output for the color it hovers over in all sorts of measurements. Makes it easy to nab any color from the site and make very unobtrusive avatars.

That still seems a bit more work than simply making the background transparent, which you should be able to figure out with a few seconds of googling.

[Irbis]

Ever tried to resize transparent background?

The results usually suck big time.

[Serpentine]

:confused:
You just resize the image, and the "lack of background" goes with it... I'm not really seeing the problem :smallconfused:

[Lyndworm]

Not if you use M.S. Paint... :smallsigh: I've had many a run-in with such things.

[Serpentine]

No idea with paint so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. By the way, there's an avatar waiting for you in the Request thread.

[Ichneumon]

I think this is an improvement... right? :smallconfused:

[Quincunx]

Correct in one, I'm a Paint user, and transparency is not a tool I have. However, the extra utility of grabbing the color intended to be displayed made downloading the cursor more worthwhile than downloading a transparency program. (P.S., if you are interested in programming such things, there doesn't seem to yet be utility for truing/calibrating/what-have-you color for iPhone/iPad, and strong demand for same. If there is--let me know!)

[NerfTW]

Not if you use M.S. Paint... :smallsigh: I've had many a run-in with such things.

Using MSPaint is like riding 10 miles to work on a scooter when a car is available. Or using a broken typewriter when your computer is right next to you.

GIMP is free, easy to use, and way more powerful than a program that hasn't been updated since Windows 95. There's no reason to be using MS Paint in this day and age. It's 15 year old shovelware, plain and simple.

[SpiderMew]

As this thread is related to avatars i would like to ask an avatar related question.

I know animated avatars are not alloud but what about shifting avatars?
These are still images that turn into a differnt image when the page is refreshed.

Example of an avatar that i use at another fourm

refresh the page to change the avatar! There is like 26 different images
http://spidermew.infinitymugenteam.com/SpiderMewAvatars.png

Is this type of avatar alloud as long as all the images are 120x120 and its small file size?

[Douglas]

As this thread is related to avatars i would like to ask an avatar related question.

I know animated avatars are not alloud but what about shifting avatars?
These are still images that turn into a differnt image when the page is refreshed.

Example of an avatar that i use at another fourm

refresh the page to change the avatar! There is like 26 different images
http://spidermew.infinitymugenteam.com/SpiderMewAvatars.png

Is this type of avatar alloud as long as all the images are 120x120 and its small file size?
I've seen this asked and answered before, and the answer is no due to the difficulty of a mod checking that every image in the lineup is appropriate for these forums. With such an avatar, there is no general way for a mod to verify that, say, there isn't 1 image in the lineup of 50 that's pornographic, and such an arrangement could easily go unnoticed by a mod for a long time while still being blatantly against board rules. When someone inevitably reports it, verifying the complaint would then take quite a while and a lot of refreshes, and the mods have decided it's just not worth the trouble.

[Trixie]

Using MSPaint is like riding 10 miles to work on a scooter when a car is available. Or using a broken typewriter when your computer is right next to you.

GIMP is free, easy to use, and way more powerful than a program that hasn't been updated since Windows 95. There's no reason to be using MS Paint in this day and age. It's 15 year old shovelware, plain and simple.

What.


GIMP is useless.

Actually, it's less than useless, IMHO. It's so useless it's use value is negative.

Why? Let's look at possible uses:

A) Professional: it lacks so many options (while being bloated pile of bantha podoo) compared to programs Corel and Adobe produce that most professionals simply don't bother with it. In fact, there are far better OS alternatives, which is a nail in the coffin for pretty much any pro use of it;

B) Amateur: nope. In the time GIMP opens I can open any number of lightweight free programs, edit the picture as necessary, and close them before that behemoth even moves. Double so on the Netbook. So what if they don't have all the options GIMP has? Every program I use for file editing has 1-5 options that they do better than GIMP, are far faster, save programs to smaller files...

For one example: Irfan View is far better viewer/resizer/converter/other than GIMP can even hope to be, and does the things I use it for in a fraction of time GIMP would do it.

I tried to use GIMP, honestly, but since my experience with it was limited to running into beton walls (lack of options/doing things other programs I know do far worse) I gave up after a week and left it behind.

And that doesn't even take into account the fact GIMP likes to crash on most configurations in the most unfortunate moments, say, when you try to save the file you worked 3 hours on, for example.

---

Oh, and your insertion about Paint... Say, have you saw any revision after Win 95? I use it all the time, and the changes in Paint XP and later versions were huge. But, to really appreciate them, you need to actually use it (in which case, you'd be thankful for removing limits it had). Sure, not everything can be done with it, but again, for the things I use it, is is much better than GIMP can ever hope to be.

IMHO, even on Linux forums such anti-MS opinion would be corrected be someone these days. You are entitled to it, of course, but I simply cannot agree with it.

By the way - the avatar you see on the left was produced using MS Paint only, granted, from reference picture, and by using a few advanced tricks, but 90% of the work was done in Paint. Irfan was used only for resizing and for file saving. If I tried to make it in GIMP, it would take twice as long, for no better result at all.

[Rawhide]

For one example: Irfan View is far better viewer/resizer/converter/other than GIMP can even hope to be, and does the things I use it for in a fraction of time GIMP would do it.

Have you tried XnView (http://xnview.com/)? It has long since replaced IrfanView for me in every use.

[SpiderMew]

Gimp is not useless. I use it all the time.
Its a great free program, and as long as you know how to use it you can make great stuff.
I have yet to use a free art program any better suted for my needs.
But thats probably cuz im a sprite editor.
I even made a 6 part video showing how to use gimp.... for sprite editing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE3BFcHmiYA

[Trixie]

Have you tried XnView (http://xnview.com/)? It has long since replaced IrfanView for me in every use.

Well... no. I'm too used to Irfan. But I'll try it, as IV ceased to upgrade lately. Thanks :smallwink:

On a side note, why ewery OS program has to have horrible, useless name that limits the target audience by 90%?


Gimp is not useless. I use it all the time.

My definition of 'useless' is 'something that lets me do something using more time than similar programs'. And it does.


Its a great free program, and as long as you know how to use it you can make great stuff.

Well, others are as good or better, and quicker. To me, at least.


I have yet to use a free art program any better suted for my needs.
But thats probably cuz im a sprite editor.

You are aware that there are programs designed specifically to sprite manipulation? :smallconfused:

On a side note, every good sprite art I've ever seen was created using Paint-like programs.

And, well, I'd hesitate to call that sprites. Where's the pixelosis? The 8 bit feel? The cutely drawn squares? :smalltongue:

[SpiderMew]

Ive tryed programs spacificly designed for sprite manipulation, they tend to be so needlessly complacated.


And, well, I'd hesitate to call that sprites. Where's the pixelosis? The 8 bit feel? The cutely drawn squares?
This nine confuses me, who's sprites are you refering to that you would hesatate to call sprites? Did you go on my website and look at my work or something?

[Quincunx]

Using MSPaint is like riding 10 miles to work on a scooter when a car is available. . .

You would, then, be the person who remarked on the news about the London bicycle-rental exchange, "Bringing down western countries to the 3rd world level"? :smallamused:

[Trixie]

Ive tryed programs spacificly designed for sprite manipulation, they tend to be so needlessly complacated.

Gimp. Complication. Does not compute :smalltongue:


This nine confuses me, who's sprites are you refering to that you would hesatate to call sprites? Did you go on my website and look at my work or something?

...

You did post video claiming it was yours, 5 posts above this one?

[Dallas-Dakota]

That's like putting a nuclear engine on your bike.
Stop.

Everybody, stop and re-read this.

This must be done.

[Trixie]

Obviously, you never ride on a soviet-made bike.

It drives like a tank, except you don't feel any cooler. Worse, in fact.

[Knaight]

Ive tryed programs spacificly designed for sprite manipulation, they tend to be so needlessly complacated.

Pixen. It might be Mac only, but its fast, works beautifully with sprites, and can be used as if it were a basic Paint program or for something closer to Inkscape levels. Its almost as powerful as GIMP, and better organized.