16 replies to this topic

[Alias]

I've been noticing the current logo(s) are rather large in size. The Fallout Orange one uses a whopping 211kb! If you load Fallout Studios ten times a day, that is two megabytes being used. If you visit here every day, that's almost 800mb for a year. That's ten albums. The Fallout Blue is a more reasonable 80kb.
I'm speaking for those of us who actually have limited usage, yes, Australian internet does suck (and I'm sure we aren't the only country).

I suggest changing the current .png/.jpg logos to .gif. Yes, you will sadly lose some quality, but it is just a logo - an identifier. Something you look at to know where you are, not to stare at for twenty minutes.

These two .gif versions add up together to be a little more than half that of the current orange one.



Before you go complaining "ewww", the E-Studios logo was .gif and nobody complained at all.

Discuss.

[Dr. Strangelove]

+1 Approval, because I'm a utilitarian at heart, even if I do have a really good connection.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 24 November 2008 - 11:26.

[Dauth]

We lose the shadow on the gif, honestly though I don't mind that much.

[Wi-Ta]

I do not see the logo at all "Adblock plus" is my friend

Br
Wi-Ta

[CommanderJB]

I visit this page many times a day so I'd have to say I support this. Especially as it looks like I'm going to run out of internet credit this month. Again.
(TBH FS has virtually nothing to do with it... but every little helps.)

[Chyros]

I hardly saw the difference on that gif, I support.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

or, alternatively, we could just optimise the jpg and png... which in fact reduces the file size even more than the gifs, but with out the huge drop in quality:


Current: 85KB Gif: 45.92KB Optimised jpg: 22.5KB

The Orange skin one it tougher as it's a png, but I can get that down to 181KB in png form... or if I remove the shadow and convert to jpg, I can get it down to 52.63KB (gif is 64.81KB), with no major loss in quality.



EDIT: While I'm at it, I can also get the soviet one down from 63.52KB to 33.56KB

Edited by Bob, 24 November 2008 - 15:26.

[Alias]

Bob, on 25 Nov 2008, 2:23, said:

or, alternatively, we could just optimise the jpg and png... which in fact reduces the file size even more than the gifs, but with out the huge drop in quality

You as well as I do know that compressed .jpgs look absolutely disgusting. With a .gif there are no artefacts, just dithering, which to me looks substantially better.

All to his own, I guess.

Edited by Alias, 24 November 2008 - 19:10.

[Libains]

While I agree that it's a large size, and doesn't help some users with regards to their limited usage, I can't understand why this has to be solved for all users when not many are affected, even those with limited braodband space. Your browser should by default store images such as those in it's cache, hence it only needs to load them once per session and then it's done - if you're going to clear your cache at the end of every session surely that's your call? As far as I'm aware the caches of the top browsers (Firefox/IE/Opera) prioritise content in them according to which websites you access the most - most regular users are going to have Fallout Studios pretty close to the top of that list, and hence the detai and images are going to be kept in the cache, hence why when you reload the page after the first access, the image zaps straight in - it's already stored locally. I for one, wipe my cache after every session, but many users simply won't be bothered to do so, and so the images will sit in there for a day at a time - that takes your estimate down from 800Mb to 77Mb - one tenth of the size. If you compare that to the bandwidth usge of other websites, such as the BBC news website, it is very small. A change wouldn't make too much difference from my perspective and I know it's not a difficult thing to do - but why fix something that ain't broke?

[Alias]

The Swimmer, on 25 Nov 2008, 6:29, said:

While I agree that it's a large size, and doesn't help some users with regards to their limited usage, I can't understand why this has to be solved for all users when not many are affected, even those with limited braodband space. Your browser should by default store images such as those in it's cache, hence it only needs to load them once per session and then it's done - if you're going to clear your cache at the end of every session surely that's your call? As far as I'm aware the caches of the top browsers (Firefox/IE/Opera) prioritise content in them according to which websites you access the most - most regular users are going to have Fallout Studios pretty close to the top of that list, and hence the detai and images are going to be kept in the cache, hence why when you reload the page after the first access, the image zaps straight in - it's already stored locally. I for one, wipe my cache after every session, but many users simply won't be bothered to do so, and so the images will sit in there for a day at a time - that takes your estimate down from 800Mb to 77Mb - one tenth of the size. If you compare that to the bandwidth usge of other websites, such as the BBC news website, it is very small. A change wouldn't make too much difference from my perspective and I know it's not a difficult thing to do - but why fix something that ain't broke?

My cache is 256mb in size. It barely lasts an hour without stuff being overwritten. I browse far more than you think, and I'm sure some others do to.

Another thing is... does it really adversely affect you/others? As I said before, it is just an identifier - not the Mona Lisa.

[Libains]

Damn you're fast - anyways, as it stands the majority of users will keep a tab/window open for preferential pages - that tab/window keeps a cache space open. My cache is 50Mb and yet my page on Fallout doesn't have to reload in a day - and I browse a lot of high content web-pages *Watches 600mb streaming video* - your browser knows better than to delete stuff from pages that you visit regularly - it will overwrite the majority of your cache but it will leave behind stuff from pages you visit a lot, and only change them if it detects differences. As I said, I'm not adverse to seeing it changed, and it would make no difference whatsoever to your average everyday user. My thought are that if it does get decreased it does lower initial value for new user/guests, and as much as this forum is about it's content, it is, to begin with, also about the presentation, and there is noticeable loss of quality in the gif images. It's not going to kill anyone anytime soon, but it's fair to say that people should see both sides to this.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

Alias, on 24 Nov 2008, 19:10, said:

Bob, on 25 Nov 2008, 2:23, said:

or, alternatively, we could just optimise the jpg and png... which in fact reduces the file size even more than the gifs, but with out the huge drop in quality

You as well as I do know that compressed .jpgs look absolutely disgusting. With a .gif there are no artefacts, just dithering, which to me looks substantially better.

All to his own, I guess.

...

The images in my previous post are the compressed ones, and they look fine

EDIT: also, if you are a FF user, you could try this plugin it allows you to load your own locally stored images... which would save you from having to download the image each time.

Edited by Bob, 24 November 2008 - 22:04.

[Chyros]

Bob, on 25 Nov 2008, 0:00, said:

The images in my previous post are the compressed ones, and they look fine

Well in that one I actually do notice a much lower quality, particularly around the letters.

[Slightly Wonky Robob]

Well there are some artefacts, but IMO the quality is still a lot better than the gif versions... and I could still increase the quality slightly so the artefacts are less obvious, and still have it dramatically lower than the original.

Edited by Bob, 24 November 2008 - 23:11.

[TheDR]

Bob, on 24 Nov 2008, 23:03, said:

Well there are some artefacts, but IMO the quality is still a lot better than the gif versions... and I could still increase the quality slightly so the artefacts are less obvious, and still have it dramatically lower than the original.

I agree, the Jpg versions do look better than the gif ones.

[Alias]

Bob, on 25 Nov 2008, 9:00, said:

...

The images in my previous post are the compressed ones, and they look fine

I know the ones in your post are the .jpg versions. They look disgusting, like they've been run through paint.

[Whitey]

Neither. Leave them how they are.

-Rorschach