Since I seem to do this once a year, I guess it's time again.

Why do people insist on posting 100MB (or larger) images in
povray.binaries.images?  I know we all want to display our work in graphic
detail (pun intended) but do we really need to post such large images.

The reason I ask, in part, is because I have a bandwidth challenged
connection to the internet (as do many of us, I believe).  Some of the large
postings sound interesting but are not worth the large download times for us
bandwidth challenged people.  So, the contributions of these people just
don't get as much attention (or no attention) as those in the 50K to 80K
postings.

I've noticed that some people post reasonably sized images here and then
provide a link to the whopper scale image file located at their site.  This
would seem a more reasonable way to proceed, IMHO.

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?

--
Jim

Check out my web site  http://www.kressworks.com/

Post a reply to this message

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

Intended to be 100KB not 100MB no doubt.
I agree very much with your comments, I am one of the people with a very poor
connection (I shudder to think others might have worse!) so a 100KB
message+attachment takes one minute to retrieve as it is.
The average time per day for p.b.i. alone might be about 15  minutes or more.
Not really a terribly long time but it can be a long wait sometimes when I go
through each one individually so the time seems stretched out further.
A good (bad?) example would be the recent maze postings there.  I could easily
see those being reduced to horribly compressed Jpeg images and still get the
idea of what they are  ;-)

Bob

"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

Perhaps if we all send our images with a maximum image size of 240x320 and a file
size of no more than 50kb.  Then in a second follow-up message, attach a compressed
archive of the full-size version for those who would like to view the image in all
its grandeur.

Just a thought!

- Tony

Bob Hughes wrote:

> Intended to be 100KB not 100MB no doubt.
> I agree very much with your comments, I am one of the people with a very poor
> connection (I shudder to think others might have worse!) so a 100KB
> message+attachment takes one minute to retrieve as it is.
> The average time per day for p.b.i. alone might be about 15  minutes or more.
> Not really a terribly long time but it can be a long wait sometimes when I go
> through each one individually so the time seems stretched out further.
> A good (bad?) example would be the recent maze postings there.  I could easily
> see those being reduced to horribly compressed Jpeg images and still get the
> idea of what they are  ;-)
>
> Bob
>
> "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

Tony Vigil wrote:
>.......
>Then in a second follow-up message, attach a compressed
>archive of the full-size version for those who would like to view the
>image in all its grandeur.

No, when you're on a phoneline and have to pay per minute, the fastest and 
cheapest way is to download the whole group at once. Extra images makes the 
online time longer.

Ingo

-- 
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray    : http://members.home.nl/seed7/

Post a reply to this message

ingo wrote:
> 
> Tony Vigil wrote:
> >.......
> >Then in a second follow-up message, attach a compressed
> >archive of the full-size version for those who would like to view the
> >image in all its grandeur.
> 
> No, when you're on a phoneline and have to pay per minute, the fastest and
> cheapest way is to download the whole group at once. Extra images makes the
> online time longer.

Another issue is that we pretty much insist that everyone post .jpg image
file and they are already so highly compressed that putting them inside
an archive file does not allow them to compress much more anyway.

-- 
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

I sort of agree with this. Finished works of art I would say could go up to 200k
or even 250, like some of Gilles' work for example. However, a pic showing off a
macro, showing a work in progress, etc, should be around 50k or less. Not
wanting to point fingers, but as an example, 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)

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <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

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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:22:02 -0600 David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet>
wrote:

<snip..>
>but as an example, 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.
<snip..>

  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.

-- 
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

"Bob Hughes" wrote:
> Intended to be 100KB not 100MB no doubt.
> I agree very much with your comments, I am one of the people with a very
poor
> connection (I shudder to think others might have worse!) so a 100KB
> message+attachment takes one minute to retrieve as it is.
> The average time per day for p.b.i. alone might be about 15  minutes or
more.
> Not really a terribly long time but it can be a long wait sometimes when I
go
> through each one individually so the time seems stretched out further.
> A good (bad?) example would be the recent maze postings there.  I could
easily
> see those being reduced to horribly compressed Jpeg images and still get
the
> idea of what they are  ;-)

Not having contributed any work in the past, before I posted my examples I
meandered through the newsgroup to see example posted file sizes.
I didn't think mine were that large.  My latest postings were intended to be
the last for that macro, and I wanted to show the different combinations.

I guess I should set my render sizes down a bit.

Perhaps I'll do better in future.  Perhaps I won't bother again.

rc

Post a reply to this message