"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:45f09f1c@news.povray.org...
>

>> I did say increase the file size limit, I know there's no explicit image 
>> dimensions limit :-) .
>
>  Yes! Should we give this a go? I was thinking exactly this when Bruno 
> re-posted his busy and well-worked-on 'POVLAB' image! Should we increase 
> it to 500kb's or slightly lower? Say, 350kb's or 400kb's or so?
>
>
>>
>> I was suggesting the file size was too low to allow larger images without 
>> compression artefacts, not that larger images were not allowed.
>>
>> I've rechecked through the irtc archives and seen that most images don't 
>> seem have difficulty fitting in the 250k limit, (so the problem isn't 
>> that great) but still I'd think some images with lots of hard edges might 
>> have difficulty fitting 1024x768 or 1280x1024 into 250k. I just thought 
>> now might be a good time to re-raise the issue.
>
>    And a good time to raise this issue too. Thanks Verm.
>
>
>>
>> - has anyone found the 250k limit restrictive and does anyone think we 
>> should soften the limit a bit? (bandwidth allowing of course)
>
>   250k is ok, but let's all face it, in today's present climate with BB, 
> <me, late starter>, upping it would be good. Bandwidth *shouldn't* be a 
> problem.
>

If it's no problem for you, Steve, I think it would be a good idea. 250k was 
no problem for me, but some more room to move in would be more confortable 
:-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message