b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Famous Tart Cards » Message 8450523 (Thread)

[challenge entry] something about spacehoppers

From the Famous Tart Cards challenge. See all 307 entries (closed)

(I helped save b3ta! new_matt, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:42, archived)
# Is that Stuart Maconie?
Even if it isnt, and no matter who it is, I concur. He is better than Kate Thornton!
(I helped save b3ta! Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:45, archived)
# I concur with this concurrence
(I helped save b3ta! Joliet, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:45, archived)
# i thought of you the other day
and i realised i spend too much time on b3ta :)
(big fat cocks, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:45, archived)
# i have that effect
hang on, are you a duplicate or the real thing?
(I helped save b3ta! new_matt, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:47, archived)
# spare account
i have not prepared my milestone
(big fat cocks, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:08, archived)
# TJ: driving home a point
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not bitching about a picture being a whole .35k over 50k, I'm not that pathetic. In terms of bandwidth I don't give a monkeys if pictures are 250k and animations 500k. However, this backs up something I was trying to explain to someone earlier -- this picture is right on a totally arbitrary 50k limit, when the actual aim of the "guideline" is to make the picture as small as possible.



is a version of this which keeps the entire joke, doesn't lose much quality, and is a fifth of the size. yes, it's a bit blurred around the text, but this isn't meant to be high-art, this is a joke. In terms of what you can do with about 5 seconds of optimisation, file-size Nazis would do better to attack people posting 50k images that can be compressed to 10k than they would people who post 100k images that lose too much when compressed down to 55k.

As I say, I'm not in the slightest having a dig at the size of this picture -- it's a total threadjerk.



Edit: Also, I disagree. I think I'm one of the few people who really fancies Kate Thornton.... ;)
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:47, archived)
# fuck off
and take your artifacts with you
(I helped save b3ta! new_matt, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:48, archived)
# Oh come on
As I said, I wasn't having a dig at you at all. There's been a lot of file-size Naziism for quite a while now and it gets on my tits a bit. If they're going to be Nazis, they may as well be Nazis about the right thing.
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:49, archived)
# i'm all against file size complaints
you'll notice that all my pictures are over 50kb, save it for the monkeys that post the 600 pixel wide doodles of their WoW characters in crayon.
(I helped save b3ta! new_matt, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:52, archived)
# This, this and this
(waxdart hello., Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:54, archived)
# As I say
in terms of bandwidth I don't give a monkey's toss if pictures are at 250k. I do sometimes get bothered by sloppy optimising because it's just laziness -- but the main point here is that I was trying to explain this to someone a bit earlier, and yours was high up on the board so I thought I'd try again.

I'm not fussed about file-sizes unless it's insanely overlarge and could be a tenth of the size. (And forcing this to be 5k would make it look like shit.)
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:55, archived)
# Erm no,
it is set at 50kb. Therefore, anything under or on it is fine. It is a perfectly acceptable limit under which pretty much any static image will fit.
(I helped save b3ta! Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:55, archived)
# The guy who wrote the FAQ
has said a few times that he regrets putting an actual number on it, and that the point was that pictures should be no larger than necessary.

That's my only point.
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:56, archived)
# that's like Hitler saying he regretted writing Mein Kampf


tht's my only point*

*there isn't one
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:58, archived)
# don't you worry fella, I understand
*pats on back*

it's more a matter of hosting bandwidth in my mind, I agree that people should try to lower size as much as is reasonable possible, though people can get a little carried away in the enforcing of such netiquette. Email fwd's with word documents containing mahusive jpg's or even worse bmp's piss me off more.

Best to keep the intertubes as empty as possible ready for when something more necessarily fat comes through. Like watching telly on BBC i-player. And 'the you tube' :p
(I helped save b3ta! doph no time like the precedent, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:19, archived)
# fuck'em
if the pic is worth it and is not a tiff,bmp and the like. Then the file size is a good to have.

But more to the point who the fuck is Kate Thornton?
(waxdart hello., Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:51, archived)
# used to present the x factor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Thornton

and a few other things.
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:57, archived)
# A pic would have been better.
googles

Oh that bird!
(waxdart hello., Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:59, archived)
# yeah sorry
i forgot that wikipedia decided to remove all the photos from the site that weren't of some nerd wanking himself off.*







* more or less true. someone posted loads of photos and videos of himself having a wank. but not quite true because they were also removed. i think wikipedia just hates pictures.
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:01, archived)
# i tell you what
if she's only 35 then i'm a dutchman
(I helped save b3ta! new_matt, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:00, archived)
# a few times i've seen her recently
it looks like she's hit the bottle hard. probably with her face, judging by the looks of it, and that bright red nose.

i do think she was fit when she was younger though.
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:03, archived)
# aww c'mon
tis only just shy of 2kb over :)
(I helped save b3ta! McBadger COW, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 15:57, archived)
# but......
it wasn't actually aimed at this picture, it was just a handy example. that's why i wrote

"I'm not bitching about a picture being a whole .35k over 50k, I'm not that pathetic"

and repeated a couple of times that i wasn't having a dig at him at all.

i thought i also made it clear that i don't actually care about a 50k limit...
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:00, archived)
# I agree with this
Images such as this are usually over 50k, but they're as small as they're reasonably going to be, and nobody ever complains.

Whereas, as you say, some other images can be feasibly and reasonably shrunk to 20% their size.

Given that the reasoning is capped bandwidth, a lot of the Nazis; particularly those responding with the 40k "FAIL" images seem to be missing the point.

By the time I've typed this out, between phone calls, I expect it to be off the board. Ah well, that's the way the Internet crumbles. Or something.
(I helped save b3ta! Thinker, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:16, archived)
# Thank you for actually getting the point
I didn't think it was *that* hard to follow...
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:20, archived)
# This is FAR worse quality than the other.
This is poor quality and over optimised.
(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:19, archived)
# fucking hell
1: "driving home a point"
2: "this isn't high art"
3: "this isn't aimed at you"
(I helped save b3ta! boris the spider, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:22, archived)
#
I don't think the quality is that greatly reduced.

Nor does the image quality matter greatly in getting the joke across in this image.
(I helped save b3ta! Thinker, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:27, archived)
# yawn
(I helped save b3ta! yanmania... last shagged your mum on, Tue 10 Jun 2008, 16:21, archived)