"Stefan Persson" <azy### [at] teliacom> wrote in message
news:3f4b70a8$1@news.povray.org...
>
> But why should you post a 200k image when you with a small
> effort could post a 40k image? That's my point.

I understand, except your example here was not right for the subject. I
couldn't see any difference between any of those four images. I don't wear
my eyeglasses most of the time I'm using the computer since I'm nearsighted
and can see well enough to not need them. Although, I can't see perfectly
either so I had to lean closer to the screen to see any imperfections,
possibly because I use a 15" LCD with a 1600x1200 resolution.

Anyway, thing is, without some primary colors there isn't going to be much
distortion. If you had done the same to an image with a bright yellow table
on a red and green checkered floor with blue walls I'd have seen the effects
clearly. [deja vu? like this has all been said before!] And I think this is
the main reason people reject the idea of compressing their renderings much.
I don't know what medium quality equates to in ImageReady but I'm sure it
would make some images look awful, so much so that they wouldn't be as
useful to see anymore.

I agree completely that some tweaking of the Jpeg compression would benefit
everyone, including the person doing the uploading. However, far as that's
concerned, I noticed a while ago that going beyond the conventional
(standard?) Jpeg method can cause a file to be unusable by some Jpeg viewers
so I never attempt it anymore. In fact, I stay away from Jpeg 2000 or the
progressive kind, as well.

I like PNG, actually. I embraced it almost as soon as I first knew about it.
How can anyone not like something that compresses an image file while
leaving it intact? I do concede (for Martin's sake) that for this newsgroup
PNG is not really an acceptable format *unless* Jpeg at highest quality or
least compression still can't do the image justice. Unfortunately, this
seems to be personal judgement which varies a lot and no one can quite lock
down what is best.

While on this topic, I noticed Hugo mention pixel resolution too. Good point
as well, because once you get to a large viewing size the trouble is
two-fold. Being able to see it all at once and compressing to a small enough
file without negatively affecting the appearance. Based on what is typical
here I'd say 800x600 ought to be the usual maximum, with no more than a
300KB download size *after* encoding. I like it when they are less than
that, and get grumpy if encountering megabytes of little or giant images
when I read through povray.binaries.images.
:-)
Afterthought: not exactly the place to fill up with talk about it either.
Heh-heh.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message