This is just a humble request:
When you post images, please pay attention and compress the images.
IMHO it doesn't matter if there is some artifacts. If the image suffers
greatly from this, post a small image here with a link to a larger one.
This way I can judge for myself wether I want to download it or not.
I really enjoy viewing all images in this NG, both the professional and
the.. ehr.. not so professional, but it's really annoying to see images
posted
here wich could easily be compressed down to 50% or more.

Please yell at me if I'm totally out of line here.

/Stefan

Post a reply to this message

> Please yell at me if I'm totally out of line here.

You're not out of line. I fully agree with you, and nobody needs to be upset
about this. Even those with fast connections (mine is 256 kbit) will benefit
from smaller files. The POV-Ray server too.

Even images in high resolution can usually be compressed to below 100 kb
without killing them. I don't mean to encourage people to put only
thumbnails here and the real images on their own server or webpage, because
here the images will last! It's also annoying to visit webforums where
images have already been taken offline by the people who posted a temporary
link to them.

So keep posting here, using good old jpeg compression, please.. Nothing
more. I know there is a format popping up now and then, where binary files
can be transferred without any overhead, but anyway, stay away from it also
because it forces everyone to install other newsreaders and eventually buy
software.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

Anybody have any objections to PNG format, for those pictures that don't
look good when converted to JPG? PNG is lossless, provides good compression,
and as far as I know, becoming pretty widespread. I know people on this
newsgroup use a variety of operating systems, can everyone use PNG files?

--
-David

Post a reply to this message

Stefan Persson wrote:
> Please yell at me if I'm totally out of line here.

ARRRGGGGHHHHHH !

:)

(well someone had to)

-- 
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

Even though most people can read/write PNGs, I think the use of PNG should
be left for very special ocasions where JPG artifacts cannot be tolerated.
PNG's lossless compression, most of the time, never compresses images as
well as JPGs, and usually, with sufficient quality, they're
undistinguishable.

Fernando.



news:3f47b13d@news.povray.org...
> Anybody have any objections to PNG format, for those pictures that don't
> look good when converted to JPG? PNG is lossless, provides good
compression,
> and as far as I know, becoming pretty widespread. I know people on this
> newsgroup use a variety of operating systems, can everyone use PNG files?
>
> --
> -David

Post a reply to this message

hehe :)

/Stefan

"Rick [Kitty5]" <spa### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3f47ba37@news.povray.org...
> Stefan Persson wrote:
> > Please yell at me if I'm totally out of line here.
>
> ARRRGGGGHHHHHH !
>
> :)
>
> (well someone had to)
>
> --
> Rick
>
> Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.com
> POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
> TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - ICQ : 15776037
>
> PGP Public Key
> http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Persson" <azy### [at] teliacom> wrote in news:3f476202$1
@news.povray.org:

> This is just a humble request:

Well, I almost agree 100% with you. Excecpt the PNG part: I hate PNG files.

Another thing to consider is the yEnc format for posting in newsgroup. It is 
very good and becomming wide spread.

Some newsreader got it embeded in, like Xnews. If you want to know more, go 
there:

For Yenc encoding: http://www.yenc.org/

For Xnews: http://xnews.newsguy.com/


Ciao!

Mart


-- 
-+======================+-


 bad### [at] hotmailDOTcom
-+======================+-

Post a reply to this message

Hmm ...

I really prefer the image to be as high a quality as possible, although I
do tend to get annoyed if someone posts something that is larger
that 640x480 pixels, since that makes it difficult to view on my
screen.

I am sure that I am not the only one who is examing the posted
images -- especially the good ones -- pixel by pixel in order to see
how a particular effect works.

I tend to think that around 200k is the upper limit and generally
compress between 100-200k.  Am I doing the wrong thing?

Aaron






"Stefan Persson" <azy### [at] teliacom> wrote in message
news:3f476202$1@news.povray.org...
> This is just a humble request:
> When you post images, please pay attention and compress the images.
> IMHO it doesn't matter if there is some artifacts. If the image suffers
> greatly from this, post a small image here with a link to a larger one.
> This way I can judge for myself wether I want to download it or not.
> I really enjoy viewing all images in this NG, both the professional and
> the.. ehr.. not so professional, but it's really annoying to see images
> posted
> here wich could easily be compressed down to 50% or more.
>
> Please yell at me if I'm totally out of line here.
>
> /Stefan
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Aaron Gillies" <no### [at] nospamcom> wrote in news:3f4a5351$2@news.povray.org:

> I really prefer the image to be as high a quality as possible, although 

Same for me.


> I tend to think that around 200k is the upper limit and generally
> compress between 100-200k.  Am I doing the wrong thing?

Once again, I think the same, except that I do not mind seeing image at 
1024X768 or even bigger since my 21" is set at 1600X1200.

...if you calculate that modems users can D/L at an average of 3KB or 
5KB/Sec, it's still gonna take them a minute or so to see a 200KB image....


...you have cable modem and others fast internet users too.... So I guess 
that 200KB is a good compromise for all users....

My 2cents....


Ciao!

Mart


-- 
-+======================+-


 bad### [at] hotmailDOTcom
-+======================+-

Post a reply to this message

The following images was converted with Adobe ImageReady from the original
PNG-output from POV-Ray.
I just want to show the difference in size from the 24-bit PNG to the
"Medium quality" JPG.
Give or take some decimals the PNG is 209 KiB and the "Medium" JPG is 37,4
KiB.
That is roughly a 82% reduction in size with only a slight loss in quality.
You could even go for the
no loss quality (HIGH, 100 or whatever setting your program has) and still
get a 42% reduction.
Let's say we post a 100 images and 1000 people download them. With no
compression
that is, with my example above, that is something like 20 GiB. Compress and
you will get
3.5 GiB. Worth the trouble, isn't it?

Of course this is image dependent with nature type of images suffering less
than others.
The "Low quality" JPG was posted just as a reference but even here I have
problems with spotting
any severe compression artefacts.

What I'm really after here is that it's not necessary to post a high quality
image when you want to
show a WIP. I can accept a full size image when it's finished but not
before.

I use a 2Mbit connection so I don't really have a problem, but I think it's
for everyones good to reduce the size.
Like mentioned earlier in the thread, not only it reduces the space on the
server but it also cuts down traffic.


/Stefan

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'light_test_png_24_800x600.png' (210 KB) Download 'light_test_jpg_q30_800x600.jpg' (21 KB) Download 'light_test_jpg_q60_800x600.jpg' (38 KB) Download 'light_test_jpg_no_loss_800x.jpg' (123 KB)

Preview of image 'light_test_png_24_800x600.png'

Preview of image 'light_test_jpg_q30_800x600.jpg'

Preview of image 'light_test_jpg_q60_800x600.jpg'

Preview of image 'light_test_jpg_no_loss_800x.jpg'