Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "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 
> :-)

Hi,

i'm really looking forward to the new "*RTC" (whatever it's 
going to be called - as long as it's not "the competition 
formerly known as IRTC" ;)

Now this may be a bit much to ask for, but just as a thought 
- if you're going to automate the whole site anyway, could 
this new page accommodate the animations, too...?

-Markus

Post a reply to this message