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

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> 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.

Now correct me if I am wrong here...

It has always been my impression that p.b.i. was for the posting of images
so that they may be reviewed by ones peers. This gives you opportunity to
improve your work by way of suggestions. If p.b.i. becomes a group for the
sole purpose of showcasing ones best images the same purpose could be served
by posting said images on a personal web page leaving even more space on
this server for other things.

-- 
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

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> writes:
> 
> It has always been my impression that p.b.i. was for the posting of images
> so that they may be reviewed by ones peers. This gives you opportunity to
> improve your work by way of suggestions. If p.b.i. becomes a group for the
> sole purpose of showcasing ones best images the same purpose could be served
> by posting said images on a personal web page leaving even more space on
> this server for other things.

I second this. What the use of commenting images if they're to be considered
final versions that doesn't change any more?
(I will -- however -- go through my post and delete the worst images.)

Thomas

-- 
http://thomas.willhalm.de/ (includes pgp key)

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" wrote:
>
> 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.

    Well, again, this is not intended to discard any images that -are- worth
keeping, but rather to prevent it. The p.b.i. group is filling up the server
and there was discussion about deleting some of the images. Rather than have
this be done purely by date of posting, I suggest creating a second
binary.images group where people might post images that they feel do -not-
have permanent value. Again, if there turns out to be public interest,
either re-post it to the main group, or post the text.scene-file.

    With an expiration date of several months or a year, and people like
Peter who archive all posts, I don't see things getting lost beyond recall
as long as there is any enduring value to them.

> I don't want to disrupt the idea but I also don't want to see things gets
lost.

    That is why I made this suggestion. I don't want things to get lost. But
it seems that some things -will- be lost at some point, we just have to
decide whether we want to -choose- what gets lost, or leave that up to the
ticking of the clock.

Post a reply to this message