Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Seems reasonable. There would bere some controversy though about what to post
> where. I have yet to produce an image that I would call finished, so p.b.i.
> would be off-limits for me?
> Not that I post a lot anyway, but still.
> 
> Margus
> 
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> >     Which would have a expiration date of course and then we could all agree
> > to only put finished images in pbi
> >
> >     ( too quick with the <alt+s> )

Good for stuff you know to be of transient interest though, illustrating
a question for instance.

PoD.

Post a reply to this message

"PoD" <pod### [at] merlinnetau> wrote :
>
> Good for stuff you know to be of transient interest though, illustrating
> a question for instance.
>

    Right, I was thinking of suggesting that we start using p.o.t. for that,
but why not make a new group?

    Hmm... first reason, would anyone frequent it if they knew it only
contained test images?

Post a reply to this message

In article <38c1165c$1@news.povray.org>, "Bill DeWitt" 
<the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

> Right, I was thinking of suggesting that we start using p.o.t. for 
> that, but why not make a new group?

Hmm, it might be a good idea, if it doesn't end up being redundant 
somehow...


>     Hmm... first reason, would anyone frequent it if they knew it only
> contained test images?

I think there are some people who would frequent it *because* it only 
contained test images. :-)

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:10:33 -0500 Chris Huff <chr### [at] yahoocom>
wrote:

>Hmm, it might be a good idea, if it doesn't end up being redundant 
>somehow...

  Maybe. Bill's got an interesting idea that I've considered in the
past, also. But, would it end up being a depository for a someone's
series of ten 100k test images? If it did, I'd probably end up pulling
the plug (unsubscribing) on that group due to the online time necessary
to retrieve that stuff. Ideally, an binary.images group should be
unrestricted since it'll scroll in short order anyway but, in practice,
a group that is over-satuated with big file, test renders wouldn't be
popular for long for folks with modem access.

-- 
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

In article <bib2css0e7eksoi7dh6lmu1kgqsfo6aq93@4ax.com>, Alan Kong 
<ako### [at] povrayNO-SPAMorg> wrote:

>   Maybe. Bill's got an interesting idea that I've considered in the
> past, also. But, would it end up being a depository for a someone's
> series of ten 100k test images? If it did, I'd probably end up pulling
> the plug (unsubscribing) on that group due to the online time necessary
> to retrieve that stuff. Ideally, an binary.images group should be
> unrestricted since it'll scroll in short order anyway but, in practice,
> a group that is over-satuated with big file, test renders wouldn't be
> popular for long for folks with modem access.

I have a modem connection. :-)
Not a particularly good one either, I have a 56K modem which never goes 
above 33.6, and usually stays under 28.8. But I see what you mean, if 
people misuse the group by posting tons of pictures it won't be very 
popular. Maybe just a general rule not to post more than 4 versions at a 
time, or keep the total size of all images below 500K. This would be 
"regulated" by just warning people when they post excessively.

Or maybe...would it be possible to set things up so that you can post a 
message to povray.binaries.images with the subject starting with 
something like "TEMP:", and have all threads starting with one of those 
messages automatically expire in a week or so? This wouldn't solve the 
modem speed problem, though. In fact, some people would consider it 
worse, since they can't weed out those images(by just not subscribing to 
the .temp group) unless their software supports a way to selectively not 
download those images. And it might be needlessly complex(it would be 
easier to remember to post to the .temp group than to prefix every 
message subject).

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message

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" or "I'd like to see a finished render of that" or some such thing.

Not to the extreme of 'By Invitation Only' but along those lines anyway...

Post a reply to this message

It wouldn't be perfect, nothing is.  It would provide a break-away group of
"take a look at this, plus questions" postings which would be much more
appropriate for referrals to the other groups as was said.  In being that,
however, it would necessitate more permanence so as to be around for the
pointers coming from those other message postings elsewhere, i.e.
povray.text-scene-files example images.
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.  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.

Bob

"Bill DeWitt" <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:38c14bdb@news.povray.org...
| 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" or "I'd like to see a finished render of that" or some such thing.
|
| Not to the extreme of 'By Invitation Only' but along those lines anyway...
|
|

Post a reply to this message

"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