It's one of our top issues right now. On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 23:05, Andrew Maizels <andrew.maiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >
-- Alex Payne - API Lead, Twitter, Inc. http://twitter.com/al3x
