upload larger icon files...not crazy just a little bit

[every9seconds]

Title
upload larger icon files...not crazy just a little bit

Short, concise description of the idea
Mainly, its hard to get a GIF file under 40KB even when its under 100x100 pixels

Full description of the idea
Recently I tried to upload a couple of very nice icons but I got this message: The GIF image you uploaded is too large. GIF file size cannot

Comments

[rebelsheart]

People can accomplish some rather impressive userpics with only 40KB. Large size is just more bandwidth, which would slow the site. I vote no.

[scaryjeff]

I would think that the limits are there for a reason (such as load on the server) so I don't think LJ will just increase the limit. However, the idea of trading userpic slots for a larger limit is something I like.

Perhaps a system where each userpic slot counts for 40Kb, and if you want to upload a larger image, you can, but it will use more of your userpic allowance. So your 94Kb image would use 3 of your userpic allowance, etc.

That keeps everyone happy. LJ still has the size limits (sort of) and there isn't suddenly going to be lots of extra storage needed, and users can upload larger userpics.

I do think an upper limit will be needed though (perhaps no more than 3 slots per image or something) because otherwise you'll get people uploading stupidly large files which will cause havoc for people not on a faster connection.

[intrepia]

This sounds like a great compromise solution.

[ursamajor]

I'd be good with this compromise. +1.

[lassarina]

I find this reasonable. +1

[foxfirefey]

My guess is it's an animated icon. GIF is the only format that lets you animate them.

[pauamma]

Only one in wide use. MNG is another. (But that may have the same size contraints as animated GIFs, in addition to poor browser support.)

[scien]

What foxfirefey said. There's only so many frames you can fit into 40kb, which can be a problem if you want something that is long and/or containing photos etc.

OP, I assume this limitation is in place to prevent pages from being slow to load for those on less than stellar internet connections. I'm sure people who use LJ regularly from slow connections wouldn't want the upper limit to be much higher than it is. I doubt it's a problem with the storage space your account takes up so much as everyone seeing your posts having to load a large file, so it's not equivalent to swap icon slots with large filesizes. Which is not to say this is necessarily a bad idea.

[pinterface]

At the time I started this comment, there were 13 userpics on the page. At 40KB each, that's 520KB. If we up the limit to even twice that, we're talking about 1,040KB, or ~1.02MB just for userpics. That's a considerable amount of bandwidth for mere vanity.

[dancesontrains]

True, and it is possible to make animated icons underneath 40 KB *points up*

[imc]

Yes. And anyway I'm not here to watch a complete movie in someone's userpic.

[azurelunatic]

Though that does get at least capped by threading. Happily. (I never thought I'd say that about threading.)

It would be a half-decent idea, actually, to have a setting for "turn off all userpics" on site-scheme and ?format=light pages (such as directory search and site-scheme/?format=light comment pages). This would improve the LJ experience of people who didn't want to see userpics for whatever reason, and/or didn't want to deal with the load time of userpics, even relatively small ones.

[mskala]

100 by 100 pixels by 1 byte per pixel is only 10K, and that's even before compression. Storing 24-bit colour without compression (which GIF can't do, but PNG might) would only come to 30K for a 100x100 icon. How are you able to exceed 40K at all, let alone finding it difficult not to?

[azurelunatic]

This would be for multiple-frame animations.

[nostariel]

You've never seen an animated icon before?

[mskala]

I wish I hadn't.