>
> Perhaps. But it's my call, not yours.
>

As it is ours; see, I find it convenient to look
at the pictures in this news group without going
through more stages of decoding. Maybe you
should wait until browsers/newsreaders support
jpeg2000/yencode/whatever before using it.

True, Jpeg2000 is a better format, nonetheless,
even if you render your picture at desktop resolutions
(1280x1024 or more) you should post relatively
small versions here, and small pictures (say, 800x600
or less) can be efficiently compressed using baseline
jpeg with higher quality settings.

ftp/http links to the full resolution png versions (or
other picture formats, whatever) should be given
instead of the full versions here. I don't see myself
posting a 2 or 3 Mb file to this newsgroup, even if
such large messages are supported.

True, yencode is good, better than uuencode/base64,
yet, not all newsreaders support it. It's cumbersome.


Best,

    S.




--
Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
pig### [at] iroumontrealca
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:nr2q40pfdgkqhgdpoebvtvm97k88u1abpg@4ax.com...
> On 09 Mar 2004 01:58:57 +0200, Artis Rozentals <art### [at] aaaapollolv>
> wrote:
>
> >IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> writes:
> >
> >> On 08 Mar 2004 06:43:50 +0200, Artis Rozentals <art### [at] aaaapollolv>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >This one has distracting artifacts. I suggest adjusting image size,
> >> >color depth, compression algorithms, and compression options for each
> >> >case, instead of an "99kB, 48bpp JPEG2000" fits all approach.
> >>
> >> Better than JPEG though.
> >
> >You keep claiming that, but I yet I have to see any improvement, blame
> >it on my 24bit display configuration if you like. All I see are 99kB
> >posts where 50kB would have been enough.
> --------------------------------
> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
> http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message