# Wide Forum Sig Pics



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

I f**kin hate them. I use a screen res of 1024x768

Even asked TTR430BHP politely last week to modify the width of his. Has he? Has he bollocks. :evil: :evil: :evil:

TTR430BHP [smiley=rifle.gif] concider yourself flamed


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Up your screen res - unless of couse you are using a 15"< monitor and to do so would break it.

Thanks God for scroll bars


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

Think yourselves lucky - *some* of us have to contend with 800x600.... :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

(At work anyway )


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Agree with you mate, i pm'd a user a while whose sig pic was lovely but everytime he posted, the thread would have scrollbars along the bottom as well as the side.

He kindly resized for which i was grateful.


----------



## XXMetal (Jan 20, 2004)

L8_0RGY said:


> Agree with you mate, i pm'd a user a while whose sig pic was lovely but everytime he posted, the thread would have scrollbars along the bottom as well as the side.
> 
> He kindly resized for which i was grateful.


My pleasure


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Buy a bigger screen tight arse :wink:


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

If your graphics card/monitor supports it, run your desktop at 1280x1024.
Every site I view fits nicely now.
Some don't even need *vertical* scroll bars.

Rogue


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Rogue said:


> If your graphics card/monitor supports it, run your desktop at 1280x1024.
> Every site I view fits nicely now.
> Some don't even need *vertical* scroll bars.
> 
> Rogue


Regardless of whether they support it or not, some people cannot read print that small... That isn't a comfortable screen resolution on many monitors these days... not forgetting LCD panels which have a fixed screen res...


----------



## stgeorgex997 (Feb 25, 2004)

Rogue said:


> If your graphics card/monitor supports it, run your desktop at 1280x1024.
> Every site I view fits nicely now.
> Some don't even need *vertical* scroll bars.
> 
> Rogue


Then I have to squint to see the writing :wink:


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

jampott said:


> Regardless of whether they support it or not, some people cannot read print that small... That isn't a comfortable screen resolution on many monitors these days... not forgetting LCD panels which have a fixed screen res...


I'm running at that resolution on a flat panel.
It's the native resolution for it (17" Dell).
Anything else just looks pants.

Besides, if people's eyes are that bad then they should be glad of the extra large sig pics :wink:

Rogue


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Rogue said:


> If your graphics card/monitor supports it, run your desktop at 1280x1024.
> Every site I view fits nicely now.
> Some don't even need *vertical* scroll bars.
> 
> Rogue


Great if you have good eyesight. I would guess you are young with good vision (like I was until recently).


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

ronin said:


> Buy a bigger screen tight arse :wink:


I did 
Got it from some dodgy looking bloke in a car park :lol:


----------



## Rogue (Jun 15, 2003)

mighTy Tee said:


> Great if you have good eyesight. I would guess you are young with good vision (like I was until recently).


Lol, well I'm 28 and I guess I still have good eyesight, although working in IT for the past 12 years can't be doing them much good 

Rogue


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Rogue said:


> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> > Great if you have good eyesight. I would guess you are young with good vision (like I was until recently).
> ...


And I am 42, working with IT for the last 15 years, had perfect eyesight until I was 40 but they are no longer as good as they use to be. :?


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Don't I Recognise You? said:


> ronin said:
> 
> 
> > Buy a bigger screen tight arse :wink:
> ...


Oi ! [smiley=rifle.gif] [smiley=rolleyes5.gif]


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

Don't I Recognise You? said:


> ronin said:
> 
> 
> > Buy a bigger screen tight arse :wink:
> ...


me as well funny that bloody skint members moaning about sig pics


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

kingcutter said:


> Don't I Recognise You? said:
> 
> 
> > ronin said:
> ...


Youve worked out how to turn it on then


----------



## andy761 (Jul 27, 2003)

I notice the people with the wide pics are keeping quiet in this thread..... wonder how many are resizing as the day goes on?? :roll:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

andy761 said:


> I notice the people with the wide pics are keeping quiet in this thread..... wonder how many are resizing as the day goes on?? :roll:


You mean Ronin's wide picture? :wink:


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

And lets add Jimfew to the Flamed list!!!!


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

Lets not forget the many laptop users with little option to buy bigger screens or are you suggesting I take a 19" tft around in a rucksack as well!


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

mighTy Tee said:


> And lets add Jimfew to the Flamed list!!!!


Hi Richard,

Sorry to hear that [smiley=oops.gif] . I was playing around last night with some piccies. I have removed one to accomodate your points.

Can you advise me if it is now acceptable? If its not, I'll take off one of the pics.

Once again, apologies, the error was mine and not intentional.

Yours (co-operatively),

Jim.


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

I've never seen my sig pic on any other screen apart from mine and it doesn't seem too bad but if its too big then let me know and I'll reduce it.

Graham


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

And not forgetting those smaller sig pics that are well above the 50k (edit)limit... occasionally on dial-up this forum is totally unusable :?

Don't people realise that 72 dpi is the typical max for a screen based pic... keeping it higher (and larger) won't have any effect...


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Taken from the 'Sig Pic' thread:



> *NOTE: Please keep all signatures to a maximum of 50k in size. Please also consider the dimensions of your picture, not too wide and not too tall. Common sense will prevail, but no more than 200px in height and no more than 400px in width is a good guideline. The smaller the better though. *


But quite obviously nobody takes any notice anyway! :?


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

andy761 said:


> I notice the people with the wide pics are keeping quiet in this thread..... wonder how many are resizing as the day goes on?? :roll:


Some forum packages have the ability to scale images to fit a certain size for use withing the forum - I wonder whether the forum software could read what your browser window was set to and then auto scale all images to fit.

John

(If you want to use big images then link to them - as I do)


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Now reduced to 200px high @ 72 ppi

Graham


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

but my 36" wide screen telly now looks like a 14" portable!

:roll: :wink:


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

...and my TT now looks like a dinky toy 

Graham


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

You're not wrong.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Love_iTT said:


> ...and my TT now looks like a dinky toy
> 
> Graham


I can't even see your TT now. Is it in the back of the queue?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

MacBuff said:


> (If you want to use big images then link to them - as I do)


Doesn't stop your sig pic being twice the size limit (or useful resolution point...) ;-)

Clive


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

clived said:


> MacBuff said:
> 
> 
> > (If you want to use big images then link to them - as I do)
> ...


You'de have to have a really small screen not to be able to see my sig pics -especially as there are four images close togther rather than several images merged into one like some people use.

The size limit shouldn't be a problem nowadays as a browser would only need to download it once and each time its referenced after that the browser would grab it from its local disk cache..

J


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

> The size limit shouldn't be a problem nowadays as a browser would only need to download it once and each time its referenced after that the browser would grab it from its local disk cache


and ? - it still has to load it in the first place which makes it a pain for anyone using dialup. Just stick to the rules.


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

coupe-sport said:


> > The size limit shouldn't be a problem nowadays as a browser would only need to download it once and each time its referenced after that the browser would grab it from its local disk cache
> 
> 
> and ? - it still has to load it in the first place which makes it a pain for anyone using dialup. Just stick to the rules.


If you use the Internet on a regular basis over a dialup, then you would know that the WWW is very image orientatend and should be prepared for sites with a large image content..

You could always disable image loading.. Mozilla (and probably other browsers) has the ability to block images from particular sites with just a right mouse click..

You could always use Lynx..

John


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Yes i am aware of that...

Its still not an excuse for ignoring the guidelines on the forum on image size


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Wak said:


> Lets not forget the many laptop users with little option to buy bigger screens or are you suggesting I take a 19" tft around in a rucksack as well!


Thanks for that, Wak 

And I certainly agree with mighT Tee and Orgy!
I too have asked someone in the past to rezise. I didn't even get a reply :? Thankfully it's a decent size now


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

coupe-sport said:


> Yes i am aware of that...
> 
> Its still not an excuse for ignoring the guidelines on the forum on image size


The 4 images may be 52 pixels wider than the guidlines, but they are only 80 pixels high, and the 4 images together aren't that much different than 1 full spec single image in bytes.. The BBcode is less than the maximum set by the system, so I can't see what the problem is..

John


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Strange that - clicking on the properties yesterday showed .png files and 25k each - now it shows .jpg and about 4k each - so whatever you have done you are now below 30k


----------



## MacBuff (Aug 11, 2004)

coupe-sport said:


> Strange that - clicking on the properties yesterday showed .png files and 25k each - now it shows .jpg and about 4k each - so whatever you have done you are now below 30k


The images they link to are .PNG..

John


----------

