# Sig Pics



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

ok we have sorted the bloody Popup problem thank God ;D can we now do something about the size of some of the Sig pics people use  I find it bloody anoying having to wait for a post to load ,only to find its made up of one line of post and a pic taking up half a page :-/
Jonah


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

You mean like TT500, Vlastan and R6B TT?*

If anybody needs a hand resizing their sig pics, please mail me and ill do it for you. 

*These names were the first that came to my head and are not meant to be targets, just examples of LARGE picture signatures.


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Its the first time I've had a sig pic so it was beggars can't be choosers - as my DigiCam got nicked. 
Thanks for the offer Kev, ScoTTy who is hosting it was going to resize it. If it's a pain I'll take it off until he's done it.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Rob

If you want it, ive done you a new sig and hosted on my domain. Ive resized it, cropped it and shrunk the k size of it.

It can be found at http://www.fnet.freeserve.co.uk/rabtt.jpg

Cheers


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

What about increasing the resolution of your computer then?


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

> ok we have sorted the bloody Popup problem thank God ;D can we now do something about the size of some of the Sig pics people use  I find it bloody anoying having to wait for a post to load ,only to find its made up of one line of post and a pic taking up half a page Â :-/
> Jonah


Get broadband you tight bugger ;D


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

so sigs are supposed to be under 50k (which to my mind is outrageously big) but how big in pixels can they be? I am sure it is shown somewhere on the forum - but I can't see it.
W.
p.s. V - your sig is a bit long mate - why dont you rotate it 90 degrees or summat.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Jonah,

The pictures are normally cached in your browser. So every time you come across a posting with a large picture you don't normally download it again (provided it wasn't updated recently).

Also your picture is a bitmap that is actually 102k big!! Â ;D My signature is only 10k big.

Even Vek's signature is 41k which exceeds the maximum size that KevinST set to 30k!!

What more can I say!


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

DAMN Jonah - sort your stinking sigpics out man - talk about MASSIVE! Â



What's weird is when I right click on his sig i'm informed its a jpg, but when i try to save it i'm told its a bitmap. Whats that all about?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

It means that he is a dodgy man...and he likes winging about others but forget's about himself! ;D


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Amir,

Have a look at the picture on the side of Jonah's posts...this is actually close to 1 Mbyte!!!   

Jonah...how dare you complaining about others? This is a disgrace!


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

> Rob
> 
> If you want it, ive done you a new sig and hosted on my domain. Ive resized it, cropped it and shrunk the k size of it.
> 
> ...


Thanks Kev


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

You're right Vlastan. Jonah's pictures exceed regulations by a factor of 3 and a factor of 30 respectively.

People in glass houses...

Sort it out mate, there's a good chap!


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

ROFLMAO


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Thanks Kev - saved me a job!!


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

> Amir,
> 
> Have a look at the picture on the side of Jonah's posts...this is actually close to 1 Mbyte!!! Â
> 
> Jonah...how dare you complaining about others? This is a disgrace!


Christ - 1 mb? I am glad I am not on dial up. I am sure he does not realise and hope he SORTS IT OUT!


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Phew - only 20k - started to worry that mine was too big - that would have been a first


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

Here we go again....... :-X


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

> Get broadband you tight bugger Â ;D





> Jonah,
> 
> The pictures are normally cached in your browser. So every time you come across a posting with a large picture you don't normally download it again (provided it wasn't updated recently).
> 
> ...





> DAMN Jonah - sort your stinking sigpics out man - talk about MASSIVE! Â
> 
> 
> 
> What's weird is when I right click on his sig i'm informed its a jpg, but when i try to save it i'm told its a bitmap. Â Whats that all about?





> It means that he is a dodgy man...and he likes winging about others but forget's about himself! Â ;D


 :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

I have BB


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Is that better ;D
Jonah


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

> Is that better ;D
> Jonah


Yeah, we all forgive! ;D


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

> Is that better ;D
> Jonah


No.

Your bottom sig pic still exceeds the guidelines of 30k by more than a factor of 3.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2002)

I really don't like sig pics of owners fizzogs. Makes it feel like some sort of dating agency site :-*


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

KM Poaell


> You mean like TT500, Vlastan and R6B TT?*


Hang on a minute MR KM Poaell*, just put on my anorak...your sig pic is 41,087 bytes and mine below although bigger in view (story of my life) has less Bytes 36,165, so how can you say I abuse the forum's storage data? ???

*Name has been changed to protect the innocent. alledgedly, as they say ;D


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

> KM Poaell
> Hang on a minute MR KM Poaell*, just put on my anorak...your sig pic is 41,087 bytes and mine below although bigger in view (story of my life) has less Bytes 36,165, so how can you say I abuse the forum's storage data? ???
> 
> *Name has been changed to protect the innocent. alledgedly, as they say ;D


Where did i say anything about you abusing storage space. Â ???


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

Sorry Kev, I'll try READING the thread properley. Â :-[

I'll try and put more web links in, instead of lots of pics. Â 

My fault completely and I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you and your country also Vlastan ;D Have a nice day


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

> No.
> 
> Your bottom sig pic still exceeds the guidelines of 30k by more than a factor of 3.


Will that do :-/


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

> Will Â that do Â :-/


Why on earth are you saving them as .bmp files!? Save as .jpg and you will see the file size shrink DRAMATICALLY. Alternatives also include .png and .gif... you will not see a noticable difference in the picture if you do it right. If you want I can do it for you - just ask.
W.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

They are JPG or atleast thats what my comps telling me they are ???


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

yeh thats what I thought at FIRST.. but right click on them and then SAVE PICTURE...

They come down as BMP! Weird aint it...


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

> They are JPG or atleast thats what my comps telling me they are Â ???


Jonah dont worry, it is a .jpg. You have it hosted at http://www.robertredvers.vispa.com/sigpic.jpg

Wintermute is a bit of a newcomer to the world of Images/Photoshop and the net i feel...... 

1. Gif's cannot be used for images due to the maximum of 256 colour depth. Therefore gifs should only be used for lineart or vectors.
2. PNG's again shouldn't be used for images, PNG's are layered and made in Macromedia fireworks, so the file size will end up being the same as a high ratio file anyway i.e a .psd(layered photoshop file).

Your best option to get a file size down is to bring the image into photoshop, the select 'save for web', then play with the .jpg 'quality' on the right hand side.

Any more tips needed, just shout  Â


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

> yeh thats what I thought at FIRST.. Â but right click on them and then SAVE PICTURE...
> 
> They come down as BMP! Â Weird aint it...


No not really, not if you know why


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

can you explain to me why? not questioning what you are just saying - just interested to know why is all...


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Also - when I save his sig its over 100k.. there is no WAY that file should be so big. Whats that all about then?


----------



## GPJ (Apr 15, 2003)

Slightly drifting off topic...
Why do so many ppl mask out the reg in their sig pics ? Am I leaving myself open to some sort of abuse if I post my pics with my reg in plain view ?
???


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

Hi TToxin,

There was a thread a few months ago about a TT owner who received speeding tickets and parking fines for another TT owner that had taken his reg nbviously a stolen TT.

He saw photographic evidence from a GATSO and could tell it wasn't his TT as he's had some mods/stickers etc and lived 200 miles away from the Gatso.

If I wanted to I could avoid paying the Congestion charge by swapping plates during the week with another Blue TT, I could just go on the forum and hunt down another blue TT. Read some of the threads and establish his/her name...easy. 

So some people are being cautious.  Si


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Yeah and my car isn't really pink and that isn't my real plate........always surprised that people think I really do have a pink car!


----------



## GPJ (Apr 15, 2003)

Ahh... I see.
I'd better get on with the mods then to distinguish mine from the GATSO pics 
Thanks for the info.


----------



## newcasTTle (Nov 29, 2002)

what would be nice would be if people hosted their small sig pics from the forum server then we wouldn't have to wait ages for the page to load while pics were dragged from a myriad of cheap/free servers all over the planet...


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

in the good old days, i'm sure this forum would have been a great place to "copy" a registration plate from....

but as TTs are 10 a penny these days, you only have to walk outside your house and wait for 2 minutes (quicker than logging onto the net!) and you'll probably see a TT of any colour you wish.... 

So not as much use for harvesting anymore!


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

True.....but I know a lot of personal info about you.... Tim, who drives a White ish TTR who lives in Cardiff and I know your reg and what line of business you're in...and...and....  I can pick up someones complete profile from this forum. Not that I would 'cause I'm nice  But some people will do anything


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

after that you just need to use one of the on-line address database searcxh engines and you've got the address, a map and even in somecase a telephone number. :-/


----------



## GPJ (Apr 15, 2003)

Today Matthew, I'm going to be.... ScoTTy


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

;D ;D


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2003)

yea.....







Â


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Still waiting to hear from powell how come the sig pic is a 100k download when you right click and save it.


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

He's given up


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

> Today Matthew, I'm going to be.... ScoTTy Â


You'd better join the queue - everyone wants to be me ;D

not 

:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

> Still waiting to hear from powell how come the sig pic is a 100k download when you right click and save it.


Hmmm interesting, i guess we must have our wires crossed. I meant that i knew a way to get around it and also a way to see that it is a .jpg. Unfortunately the problem of downloading it in .bmp format(the reason its 100k) is a inherant problem with Windows. There is no known cure or reason known to web world.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Kev not sure I understand what you are saying. I too can see that the URL of the pic says .jpg but when i right click and download it comes down as a .bmp. However if I right click and save my own sig pic then it comes down as a .jpg and is small in size. Can you explain why this is happening? Seems strange to me.

W.


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Ooops, I've changed mine now, down to 28K so I'm now legal, also got rid of the white border I had because I assumed the white background of the forum was white - but it aint!! Seems to be nearer F6F4F4, anyway its gone now.

Graham


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Remind me next time to keep my gob shut ;D :-X
Jonah


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Remind me next time to keep my gob shut Â ;D :-X
> Jonah


LOL...it's a learning process ;D


----------



## ttisitme (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah its exactly #F6F4F4



Steve


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

> Yeah its exactly #F6F4F4
> 
> 
> 
> Steve


Graham take note, it's 'Pantone 705' in our language ;D


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

> Graham take note, it's 'Pantone 705' in our language Â ;D


Or:

HSB: 0; 1; 96
RGB: 246; 244; 244
LAB: 95; 1; 0
CMYK: 2; 2; 2; 0

(But I'd prefer to work with Pantone though ;D)

Graham


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

> Or:
> 
> HSB: 0; 1; 96
> RGB: 246; 244; 244
> ...


Anyone care to explain ??? ???


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

> Anyone care to explain ??? ???


Ok, #F6F4F4 is the HTML 'web' colour reference for the off white background you are seeing now.

I quoted the 'pantone' colour reference which is what us 'print' media designers use for it, then Graham quoted the other colour spectrum references(i guess from Photoshops 'colour picker' box  ). Easy. Â


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

All seems clearer now :-/


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Oh, and there was me thinking that I was going to get people thinking that I was intelligent - you've ruined it now Kev ;D

Graham


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Graham,

[pedant] Whatever pantone the background is I'm afraid your car does not have 300 ft/lb torque as stated on your sig pic. It may have 300 lbft or ftlb or lb.ft or ft.lb but not ft/lb [/pedant]


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Mmm, all I did was copy what was on my print-out, defo says ft/lb but I have changed it to ft.lb but cant put the pic up as I can't get into the gallery at the moment for some strange reason.

So Interpro got it wrong then :-/

Graham


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Well spotted Garvin!! The interpro monkeys strike again!! ;D


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> So Interpro got it wrong


Looks like they did .............. would have expected better from them


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

> Well spotted Garvin!! The interpro monkeys strike again!! Â ;D


You talk as if you or you know of someone who has had a bad experiance from them by calling them "monkeys", what was it? Your obviously not impressed with Interpro, tell me more.

Graham


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

pantone pro v - why take two dye's into the shower when you can take just 1!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Graham...it has to do with the whole way that they dealt with cancelling the event before.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

> Graham...it has to do with the whole way that they dealt with cancelling the event before.


Nick

So basically you are pissed off with the fact they had to cancel the event becasue their rolling road broke down and you had already booked a hotel? Â :-/

What else are they supposed to do at such short notice? Â ???

Your attitude sucks. Interpro have been around LONG LONG before the likes of AMD etc started up and their reputation is second to none. There is no hard sales or bullshit. They are a 100% professional and a genuinly honest outfit.

Should you wish to talk about this further give me a shout, but untill you actually visit the place and see for yourself, you cannot describe them as 'monkeys'.

Thanks
Kevin

P.S I am in no way connected, i just i do not want the reputation of a good company slated by a twatish comments such as yours. It is hard enough finding reputable comapnies these days, without them being slated for no reason.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I was actually glad the first 2 sessions were cancelled, else I wouldn't have been able to make it.....

But I echo Kev's comments....

Been there twice, been happy both times with the way they've treated the car AND the people on the day.........


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

No Kevin...I am not upset that their hardware was broken. This is unavoidable of course.

I am upset that they had to cancel the first event as they never informed Clive...he found by accident when he called them a week before the event.

I hope you do remember why it was cancelled.

When you have 25 individuals coming up to 300 miles away to see you, you can't just cancel the last minute because your wife is going out with her mates.

Is this a professional attitude to you?

Of course I never made any comments about how professionals they are on actually doing the rolling road...but I am sure they are good at this because people wouldn't visit them.

Nick

PS...I think that you really love the word "twat" (twatish comments) as you keep using it a lot!!


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

:


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Gone really off topic now although nicks coment is probably best kept in this thread as not many will read it :-/
Jonah


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Sorry Jonah, partly my fault I guess, anyway another 'slightly modified' pic to correct the ft.lb thingy. Still only 30k though ;D

Graham


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

> Interpro have been around LONG LONG before the likes of AMD etc started up and their reputation is second to none. There is no hard sales or bullshit.


Glad you have such wide experience of rolling roads to know they are the best Kev. There are many good rolling roads around the UK that don't offer hard sales or bullshit. I'm not saying they are bad, just your support seems a little overstated and emotional. Very strange.

When were they founded? AmD's track record of 16 years of tuning (and Geoff's experience before he founded AmD) is good enough for me. You could hardly describe them as a fly by night operator.

I will never understand your style on this forum...


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Paul, personally i find your condescending attitude to everybody else's opinion about motorsport/tuning quite tiresome, and i can't be bothered to react to your bait.



> Glad you have such wide experience of rolling roads to know they are the best Kev.


At what point did i say they were the best?



> There are many good rolling roads around the UK that don't offer hard sales or bullshit. I'm not saying they are bad, just your support seems a little overstated and emotional. Very strange.


Not strange at all. Just one person is let down due to unforseen circumstances, does not give them the right to slate the reputation of a good company. As you are fully aware, alot of trust goes into these companies when they are given our hard earned money to 'enhance'. Interpro has a solid track record and can hardly be described as 'monkeys', which is my original point.



> AmD's track record of 16 years of tuning (and Geoff's experience before he founded AmD) is good enough for me. You could hardly describe them as a fly by night operator.


Once again, i dont remember anywhere in my post stating AMD were fly by night? If you read it correclty i wrote 'the likes', meaning plural. I was generalising not specifying.



> I will never understand your style on this forum...


I certainly shant lose any sleep over it.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Graham,

Sig Pic ...... 8)


----------

