A point about PNG ...
I've had some vary funny filesizes concerning a reasonably compressed jpeg, and a high
compressed PNG.... PNG may be smaller... it all depends on the scene ...
:-)

As for the 640*480, I feel it's too much of a "in-between" to use now... Sowwy...


//Spider

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> Funny Spider didn't even mention 640x480 res. Far too common?
> I like 640x480 myself, on average, since it is neither a preview-sized
> 320x240 nor a full-sized Windows wallpaper for 1024x768 displays.
> I keep a 800x600 24-bit display on my monitor (could be 32-bit but
> 24-bit is common).
> If you consider all out averages I would guess that 640x480 or 800x600
> is the major choices then. Along with ~100K or less file (or ~150K
> encoded).
> Basically though, 320x240(200) is good, 640x480 best, 800x600 almost too
> good. Reason being, larger (or smaller, meaning 160x120 esp.) files
> probably should be uploaded elsewhere and not here.
> Never really thought of guidelines on this before, just winging it
> myself.
> Perhaps a guideline should be made known and if it already has a pointer
> to it. I sure didn't know of any such thing until GrimDude mentioned a 1
> Meg limit on the binaries.animations.
> Oh yeah, file type. Jpeg most definately holds the spotlight. Png *can*
> be okay in my opinion as long as it holds to the other generalities. Gif
> would be alright too, but seems no one likes dropping to 256 colors;
> also Gif is not good at file-size when as large or larger than 640x480.
> 
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > Whats the groups preference on the size of posted images, in K and res
> >
> > Rick
> 
> --
>  omniVERSE: beyond the universe
>   http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> =Bob

Post a reply to this message