Hate to say it because sure enough if the general rule of smaller binaries was
to be followed there would never be a problem.  I just don't think the idea of
peer pressure restriction can ever be done feasibly.  Almost certain to
encounter persons who never see this subject talked about or happen to neglect
it for whatever reason (failed memories, large image fetishes [8-D], etc.).
Fact is that if there is a limit it can't be ignored.  Just like at the
binaries.animations group, even though people grumble about the opposite thing
which is too small a space to upload to.  All things being equal (balanced) a
larger animations limit and smaller still images limit should be considered at
least.  Think of it,  a person could upload a 1.3MB animation (1.75MB limit?)
and with the typical smaller numbers of them anyway it wouldn't increase the
space needed if the binaries.images group here were down to 0.5MB.  The
foreseeable trouble there is the typically slower D/L instead of a faster
webspace one.
What do you all think about that as an example?  Talk amongst yourselves... in
povray.general perhaps?

Bob

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:388### [at] pacbellnet...
>
> TonyB wrote:
> >
> > Rather than limit the size, I would suggest that everyone give fair warning
> > about file sizes in the title of the post. I try to do so, and I think
> > others should too.
>
> Especialy if they start to exceed 100k in size. From what I can tell the
> average image size around here for a 640x480 image is around 75k and for
> the 800x600 they run around 120k. I find these sizes acceptable for
> general posting but admit that some images simply compress better than
> others depending on their content.
>

Post a reply to this message