Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Antioch
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 4:08 am
Posts: 7
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:09 pm 
 

Have a look at this:
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/The ... 3540391528

and this:
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Metallica/125

It took me 10 seconds to make that gif image. Looks neat, and doesn't consume much space on the page.
Metallica's logos on the other hand take up so much space and look hideously excessive.

I strive to make multiple logos look decent:
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/In_Flames/11
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Paradise_Lost/191
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Tiamat/859
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Stryper/81757
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Katatonia/6
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Skyclad/58

but gif images would be really badass. The only problem is their size.
What do you say?

Top
 Profile  
PDS
The Young One

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:04 pm
Posts: 663
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:14 am 
 

I dknt know about the gif logos, but personally it would help if the soze was increased alittle bit as it is hard making complex logos that are unvectored look good at 50mb. Even removing metadata.
_________________
DarknessCrave wrote:
Since Danzig, Doyle, Jerry and Dr. Chud have their metal bands added in this page, is there any possibility on add Misfits as side project?

Top
 Profile  
Derigin
Anthropophagus

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 6:25 am
Posts: 2797
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:02 am 
 

The reason we impose size limits on images has nothing to do with rank. If we allowed some ranks to upload "triple the size limit" of images, and disallowed other ranks, the end result would still be the same: images across the site would be larger and have a larger filesize, and a larger filesize is what we don't want. Let me explain why.

Images (photos, logos, etc.) are among the biggest bandwidth users on websites, compared to the code involved in retrieving data from a database. The filesize of images can be astronomical in comparison. Now, when you visit a page on MA your browser is retrieving the data on the page you're viewing. As the page loads, it runs the code, issues queries on the database and displays any data and images to you. In very simple terms, this is bandwidth. Each time you load a page (especially for the first time) this process begins anew. Over and over again, more data is requested from the site's server with images using up the most bandwidth due to their size. Multiply this by the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of hits an individual page might get in a day, or a week, or a month, and bandwidth adds up quickly and substantively. Don't be alarmed by this - MA can certainly handle everything you can currently throw at it - but the process is one every site (and server) you visit goes through.

Servers restrict how much bandwidth a site can use in a given pay period. On top of that, the more hits (requests) that the server receives by individuals like yourself who use up bandwidth, the more likely you could congest the server to the point that requests from others are interrupted and the site is slow or "down." This is, in essence, one of the mechanisms behind a denial-of-service attack, when done deliberately. It is true that nowadays it's unlikely for this to happen; network bandwidth is usually better and there's more ways to mitigate congestion. That said, not all sites are created equally (or served equally) and so if you want more bandwidth, you need to pay more...

... And that's the other thing to keep in mind. I can certainly agree that it would be nice to have larger images or be able to host multiple logos or photos or whatnot. It sounds wonderful... but there's a cost, and that cost is financial. Are larger images worth an increased cost? Truthfully, that's not really our prerogative to ask that, as you and I don't pay for it. The owners might feel obliged to say yes or no, but this is not something we as visitors and volunteers can promulgate on their behalf. But, for such an ultimately aesthetic improvement, I can't see it being a convincing priority, personally.

So, in short, someday - maybe - there might be an increase in image size (who knows?), but understand that the reasoning for keeping the size limits as they are is not arbitrary. It's not just a matter of restricting use.

Top
 Profile  
Azmodes
Ultranaut

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 6190
Location: Gradec, Austria
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:39 am 
 

Also, please don't upload animated logos.
_________________
Schwarzer, Junge.

Last.fm | Collection

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group