We'd really like to see a fix for this too. Having a few hundred unexpectedly large images floating around is playing havoc with our memory usage.
Regards, Andrew Maizels PeopleBrowsr On Mar 26, 2:53 pm, Jason Schroeder <jasch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here is a 480x480 _normal > image:http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_images/108666778/I... > > Any progress on working with the UX team to resize these? TwitterBerry > is expecting a 48x48-pixel image. > > Cheers, > Jason > TwitterBerry > > On Mar 24, 7:49 am, Shannon Whitley <shannon.whit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Don't forget the _mini. :) > > > This is my list: > > > (original) > > _mini > > _normal > > _bigger > > > On Feb 25, 12:15 am, Dave Briccetti <da...@davebsoft.com> wrote: > > > > Hi. I’ve searched around for 1/2 hour or so, and haven’t found an > > > authoritative explanation of the sizes of pictures, and how to > > > retrieve them. > > > > It seems that profile_image_url leads to a tiny picture: > > > http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_images/66123958/IM... > > > > But there is also a slighter bigger version: > > > http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_images/66123958/IM... > > > > And then a proper full-sizeone: > > > http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_images/66123958/IM... > > > > Am I correct in this? That the big version URL can be derived from > > > that in profile_image_url by dropping the _normal from the name? Is > > > this part of the API spec? Safe to use? > > > > Thanks.
