"Bob Hughes" said:
>
> Another thing to consider might be to have a much lower file-size
limitation (I
> can hear grumblings already), say 250KB; I'd even think that to be large
for
> such a temporary thing if downloading is the concerned anyway.

    I agree with a smaller file size, but wonder if it needs to be
mandatory.

>But then maybe
> not temporary is the way to go for reasons stated, such as questions and
answers
> + images need to be around to learn from.

    Well, 'temporary' is, in my view, the only reason for having such a
group. The idea being to save space on the server by keeping all the "test"
images in a place where they are automatically deleted.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:

>Hmm.. just thinking, if we used peer pressure to get most renders to
>povray.binaries.images.temporary and made a tradition of only putting
>images in p.b.i. when someone replied to a test image with the phrase,
>"This one's a keeper",.....

For me everything currently in p.b.i is a keeper. For example the maze 
postings, very interesting, but I'm working on other things at the moment 
and might have a closer look at it in a few weeks. Same for all other 
postings. They may not be of special interest at the moment, but can be in 
the future. Every image can be a source of inspiration. What if such an 
image is not a "keeper"? It's lost, or I (we all) have to put up my own 
archive, as Peter does.

Some questions I have on a image.temp group; When an image gets a "this is 
a keeper" what to do with the discussion it generated? Copy it and move it 
to p.b.i? Or make a summary and move it? 
What if the discussion or the technique showed is more interesting than the 
picture itself? Will p.b.i become a showoff gallery filled with the 
"Tran's, Hazelgrove's and Day's"?

Actually I'm _verry_ happy with the current set up of the groups. I never 
minded downloading p.b.i when I was still was on a telephone. The only 
thing I didn't like was the unnecessary use of big .bmp/.png files when 
there was no small detail in the image that needed these file-sizes.

The addition of the p.o-t was an excellent idea, keeps the other groups 
cleaner. And somehowe we manage to be on topic in p.off-topic most of the 
time, that is no POV-Ray topics. So if you don't read it you won't miss 
anything POV.



Ingo

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

Post a reply to this message

"ingo" <ing### [at] homenl> wrote :
>
> What if the discussion or the technique showed is more interesting than
the
> picture itself? Will p.b.i become a showoff gallery filled with the
> "Tran's, Hazelgrove's and Day's"?
>

    Perhaps some of the discussion is worth keeping, but most of the posts
are "Great image" posts that would be better in email or on a temp group.
But to use the only good series of images I ever posted, those in which a
stone full of flowers was developed, much of the related discussion -should-
have been in scene-files, and I should have deleted the two(?) test images.

    Not to mention that there were a whole series of "equally distributed
points around a sphere" posts whose images would be better stored as a scene
file than as a finished render.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:

>But to use the only good series of images I ever posted, those in which
>a stone full of flowers was developed, much of the related discussion
>-should- have been in scene-files,...

If you did post the scene file and there was scene file related discussion, 
yes. 
If there were a discussion on something like composition or lightning, I'd 
like to have it with the picture, not the scene file.

>... and I should have deleted the two(?) test images. 

No! Also the development of a picture is interesting.
I think of TonyB's empty hallway, hallway with little people, hallway with 
magician. TonyB's moutainscape with bridge, Mick Hazelgrove's gate and red 
sea images.

>Not to mention that there were a whole series of "equally distributed 
>points around a sphere" posts whose images would be better stored as a
>scene file than as a finished render.

Here I'd say one or two pictures and the rest indeed as a scene file. Same 
with the fractal boxes. But seeing he whole process was interesting.

Ingo

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

Post a reply to this message

"ingo" <ing### [at] homenl> wrote :
>
> No! Also the development of a picture is interesting.
>

    Interesting in context, but not to casual browsers years from now.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> "ingo" <ing### [at] homenl> wrote :
> >
> > No! Also the development of a picture is interesting.
>
> Interesting in context, but not to casual browsers years from now.

I agree with ingo.

I think the group should stay as it is now.
I also think development of images can be interesting years after they were
made.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated January 24: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> I also think development of images can be interesting years after they
were
> made.
>

    I can understand why you think that, but I wonder if you ever go back
and revisit a great set of test images or if, instead, you collect the
finished works?

    I looked through about 1/2 years worth of images when I first got here,
but then I got into a range of images that didn't use the recent version of
POV and were of limited interest just because of that. I remember wondering
at the time why there were so many near duplicates.

    Perhaps you were thinking that the retirement rate would necessarily be
the same as for p.o.t? I can see a expiration of several months being a
help.

    Of course, the alternative may soon be to retire -all- past images after
a certain time.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 07:55:45 -0500, Bill DeWitt wrote:
>povray.binaries.images.temporary

This discussion went off in a different direction than I originally
thought it might, so let me propose a perfect use for such a group
that shouldn't cause any argument whatsoever: what about all the 
posts to p.b.i. that are just quickie images meant to demonstrate
something (a concept or bug or question or whatever) that's been 
posted to another group, like .general or .newusers or .programming 
or whatever, but that only needs to last long enough to get an answer
to the question that's being asked in that other group?

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote :
>
> This discussion went off in a different direction than I originally
> thought it might, so let me propose a perfect use for such a group
> that shouldn't cause any argument whatsoever: what about all the
> posts to p.b.i. that are just quickie images meant to demonstrate
> something (a concept or bug or question or whatever) that's been
> posted to another group, like .general or .newusers or .programming
> or whatever, but that only needs to last long enough to get an answer
> to the question that's being asked in that other group?
>

    Right, that's what I originally thought about. It did get pretty wide in
the course of discussion though.

    Basically I would not suggest that -any- image that is worth permanent
server space -ever- be discarded. But unless we are willing to have some
number of worthwhile images erased from p.b.i. when we run out of space, we
have to think about sorting the wheat from the chaff somehow.

Post a reply to this message

Ah yes, but see this is why I was speaking up about it.  Images with questions
associated with them might be useful in the long run as well and not just
discardable space-wasters.  I mean, what's a question and answer without the
image(s) that show it.
I don't want to disrupt the idea but I also don't want to see things gets lost.
That's my opinion on it anyway.

Bob

"Bill DeWitt" <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:38c33312$1@news.povray.org...
|
| "Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote :
| >
| > This discussion went off in a different direction than I originally
| > thought it might, so let me propose a perfect use for such a group
| > that shouldn't cause any argument whatsoever: what about all the
| > posts to p.b.i. that are just quickie images meant to demonstrate
| > something (a concept or bug or question or whatever) that's been
| > posted to another group, like .general or .newusers or .programming
| > or whatever, but that only needs to last long enough to get an answer
| > to the question that's being asked in that other group?
| >
|
|     Right, that's what I originally thought about. It did get pretty wide in
| the course of discussion though.
|
|     Basically I would not suggest that -any- image that is worth permanent
| server space -ever- be discarded. But unless we are willing to have some
| number of worthwhile images erased from p.b.i. when we run out of space, we
| have to think about sorting the wheat from the chaff somehow.
|
|

Post a reply to this message