Avatar

[rye9]

I dont know if this is the right forum... but here it goes. I recently created an avatar from two online images. However, I realize the limit is 19.5KB. But I cant get the file any smaller than 28KB. What can I do? 😱

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Less frames and/or less colours...

 

[~Shard~]

Yep. You have to shrink it somehow. Less colors, less resolution, play around with it...

 

[rye9]

Yep. You have to shrink it somehow. Less colors, less resolution, play around with it...

How can I do this? Before, I reduced the quality in Preview by clicking Save As and adjusting the quality, which I guess I cant reduce anymore.. what do I do next?

 

[~Shard~]

How can I do this? Before, I reduced the quality in Preview by clicking Save As and adjusting the quality, which I guess I cant reduce anymore.. what do I do next?

Do you have Photoshop?

 

[rye9]

Do you have Photoshop?

No, but I have experience with Seashore.

 

[Doctor Q]

Use smaller pixel dimensions. Scale it down (90%, 80%, 70%, etc.) until it fits within the bytesize limit.

Or post it here as an attachment and others can help you.

 

[HiRez]

GraphicConverter is free and can do what you want. My basic technique is to do Save For Web... from Photoshop and then play around with the settings, watching the size and quality. I often start with GIF at perhaps 8 colors and work my way up one at a time (16, 32, 64, etc.), carefully watching my image zoomed-in until I can't see any change when adding more colors (or so little change that it's acceptable). GIF works well for screenshots and some logos where you have only a few colors. Then, you can do the same thing with JPG for continuous-tone images, slowly creeping the compression slider up until you're not noticing any image degradation. I usually prefer GIF over JPG for small images such as avatars, buttons, icons, etc. PNG-24 can provide excellent lossless compression under certain circumstances but its options are limited and generally it's going to be larger than GIF.

 

[OutThere]

Or post it here as an attachment and others can help you.

Give that a try...I'd be more than willing to reduce it with ImageReady and put up a few different copies for you to pick what you like. 🙂

 

[rye9]

Give that a try...I'd be more than willing to reduce it with ImageReady and put up a few different copies for you to pick what you like. 🙂

OK, here it is....dont laugh... 😀 I appreciate the help a lot!

 

[HiRez]

Here's a quickie I did at 85% JPG compression, which is pretty high-quality (low-loss):



It comes in at about 9K. The problem here is that your image is an already-compressed image, and already has JPG artifacts. You'd want to start with the uncompressed image, and you never want to be doing double compression if you can avoid it (except for lossless compression types).

 

[rye9]

It comes in at about 9K. The problem here is that your image is an already-compressed image, and already has JPG artifacts. You'd want to start with the uncompressed image, and you never want to be doing double compression if you can avoid it (except for lossless compression types).

I'm not understanding... why is there a problem if it's already done? 😕 😱

 

[panoz7]

I'm not understanding... why is there a problem if it's already done? 😕 😱

I think he's trying to say that it would look better if he recompressed the original file instead of the one that you had allready worked on a bit. JPEG is a lossy format, meaning that everytime you save a new copy some data is lost, and the quality decreases. If the quality looks fine to you right now (and I assume that it does) I wouldn't worry about it. I guess its just advice for the future in that case...

 

[rye9]

I think he's trying to say that it would look better if he recompressed the original file instead of the one that you had allready worked on a bit. JPEG is a lossy format, meaning that everytime you save a new copy some data is lost, and the quality decreases. If the quality looks fine to you right now (and I assume that it does) I wouldn't worry about it. I guess its just advice for the future in that case...

Oh, OK.. well yeah, I guess its fine... the quality doesnt suck... and its totally visible. After all, its only a small little avatar. 🙂

 

[qpawn]

There's little dots in the bottom corners. Something tells me that your magic iPod is being invaded by tiny alien insect creatures. 😛

 

[rye9]

There's little dots in the bottom corners. Something tells me that your magic iPod is being invaded by tiny alien insect creatures. 😛

Lol... yeah, idk why that happened... but originally the background was black and when I changed it white, those dots appeared. 😀

 

[virus1]

well shrink it for mercy's sake! the limit of the tar is 70 x 70 px. no need to have that giant thing uploaded.

 

[OutThere]

Here ya go...75px high, compressed jpg. Can't really tell what it is when it's sized to scale though. It's about 2kb.

I was going to put up a few different ones for comparison, but really this was completely indistinguishable from the 4k and 9k versions. 🙂

 

[qpawn]

What about something like this?.....

 

[irmongoose]

qpawn: You're good.




irmongoose

 

[qpawn]

qpawn: You're good.

You sound like me when I look into the mirror.... "qpawn, you're good.... and damn sexy!" 😀

But seriously, folks... I was merely suggesting a "fix" for the tiny screen problem. Although I can tell it's an OS X desktop when it's zoomed out. Perhaps the new video iPod with a giant widescreen can be used in a future avatar! 😉