Robert Chaffe wrote:

> I see the point of your finger, and I'll try better next time.
> rc

Geez, sorry! Pretty much everyone here has gotten the acceptable-posting
lecture a couple times, including me of course.
As they were demo pics I think loss would be more acceptable.
JPEG is not friendly to primary colors RGB also, just so you know.

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

"Robert Chaffe" <a0003738@airmail.net> wrote :
>
> I see the point of your finger, and I'll try better next time.
>

    Don't feel bad, I don't think it was about pointing fingers, but just
that there was a handy example...

Post a reply to this message

"100mb ??? How about 1 meg which is the server allowed maximum :)"

Yeah, I meant 100K.

Passion is the enemy of accuracy ...

Jim

--

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:38BE0C4A.C48B64F9@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Jim Kress wrote:
>
> > I guess the bottom line (to me) is if you want people to view your work
you
> > might want to consider posting it at a reasonable size (say less than
100Mb)
> > and then provide a link to the whopper scaled (1600 x 1024 with 32 bit
> > color) version at you site.
> >
> > Anybody else agree or should I just shut up and go away?
>
> 100mb ??? How about 1 meg which is the server allowed maximum :)
>
> Anyway many people agree with your observation and many of us regulars
> are applying peer pressure to help keep image file sizes down. This
> for the most part appears to be working though the occassional visitor
> who is not familiar with our general preferences sneaks in a whopper
> once in a while. I think it's getting better and it may not be as bad
> as you think it is.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Alan Kong wrote:
> 
>   That's a valid point, David. I would suggest that the non-essential
> test images be cancelled from this server after they have served their
> purpose of garnering advice.

I just dashed over to p.b.animations, p.b.images, and p.b.utilities and
nuked everything except the very latest version of the Blue Booby Mesh
Modeller.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Well, that may be perceived by some on the one hand, as a selfless act, but
on the other, sort of like vanGogh cleaning out his garage!

We need a povCD2k!

John VanSickle wrote:

> I just dashed over to p.b.animations, p.b.images, and p.b.utilities and
> nuked everything except the very latest version of the Blue Booby Mesh
> Modeller.
>
> Regards,
> John

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 
> John VanSickle wrote:
> 
> > I just dashed over to p.b.animations, p.b.images, and p.b.utilities
> > and nuked everything except the very latest version of the Blue
> > Booby Mesh Modeller.
>
> Well, that may be perceived by some on the one hand, as a selfless
> act, but on the other, sort of like vanGogh cleaning out his garage!

Mostly the former, in my case.

-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 16:37:38 -0500 John VanSickle <van### [at] erolscom>
wrote:

>I just dashed over to p.b.animations, p.b.images, and p.b.utilities and
>nuked everything except the very latest version of the Blue Booby Mesh
>Modeller.

  Thanks for your help, John. That's the best way, of course, when each
author can exercise their own discretion as far as what to leave on the
server. It would be impossible for the server administrator to make a
judgement call on each and every post, image, and binary posted just to
save space.

  On a side topic, many thanks for all of your efforts throughout the
years. I have seen that a great number of people have benefitted from
your macros and your utilities. Very much appreciated.

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

I don't know if you got my analogy, because you just complimented yourself
most unabashedly.

I meant that if Vincent vanGogt were to have cleaned out his attic (the one
where all his masterpieces were stored and never sold or seen by the
general public until after his death),  humanity would have lost a great
deal.  A host of modern art historians would call it a crime against
humanity for him to have nuked half of everything in his garage.

John VanSickle wrote:

> > John VanSickle wrote:
> >
> > > I just dashed over to p.b.animations, p.b.images, and p.b.utilities
> > > and nuked everything except the very latest version of the Blue
> > > Booby Mesh Modeller.
> >
> > Well, that may be perceived by some on the one hand, as a selfless
> > act, but on the other, sort of like vanGogh cleaning out his garage!
>
> Mostly the former, in my case.
>
> --
> ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:
 
>four 80k images was a bit much for
> the maze macro. And some people like to post eighty versions of the same image
> asking for more and more advice; these should be kept to a minimum too. (I'm not
> trying to chastise anybody, just for consideration)

	And just as a consideration, as a work in progress lowering the
jpg quality should accomplish everyone's objective.

Post a reply to this message

Or a link to a web-page displaying the image (if the poster has one)

--
Mike

wk: mik### [at] pyxiscom  www.pyxis.com
hm: mwe### [at] sciticom  www.geocities.com/mikepweber
www.geocities.com/mikepweber

"Matt Giwer" <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote in message
news:38C986EB.FB83D8FD@ij.net...
> David Fontaine wrote:
>
> >four 80k images was a bit much for
> > the maze macro. And some people like to post eighty versions of the same
image
> > asking for more and more advice; these should be kept to a minimum too.
(I'm not
> > trying to chastise anybody, just for consideration)
>
> And just as a consideration, as a work in progress lowering the
> jpg quality should accomplish everyone's objective.

Post a reply to this message