333*250
83250
That's your pixel number Black-Ice.
That is 36 or 37 KB... which is quite a bit for a 56K connection which on-average will download a website image between 2 and 8 KB per second.
Because Fried has fewer colors in his image, it is only 19 or 20 KB.
His pixel number total is also;
150*534
78600
Over all your image is greater in data storage size and greater in visual space than the image Fried is using.
Darwin, your stats are as follows:
21 or 22 KB
500*118
59000
Over all, Darwin has the smallest signature size pixel wise, but has a slightly higher data storage size than Fried.
Of the images you all three have, Fried has the smallest in Data Size, which makes his the most efficient to download and display data wise. Black-Ice has the most data storage, and is thus the most download and display intensive data wise.
Darwin comes up in the middle as far as data efficiency, but has the most compact visual field of pixels being used.
I would say that all three of you have signatures that are kind of large to download and display. It is up to Particle, Ozzy or Pecker to decide on this matter, not us.
In my own personal opinion, all of your pictures do take up a large slice of the visual field, and quite a bit of bandwidth for the 56K and below users.
I reccomend all 3 of you reduce your signature picture sizes as it will best benefit the community while still providing us with a visual representation of your personal signatures.
Peace.