"Oskar Bertrand" <nomail@none> wrote in message news:4262b119@news.povray.org...
> Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>
> > I don't see why it's necessary to increase acceptable filesize limits,
> > unless the quality of the images increases as well, which it doesn't.
> > Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say there's something wrong
> > with the content of the images, or that they're not worth looking at or
> > anything, I'm trying to say that they (the images) and we (the viewers) are
> > worth taking the time to compress them (the images, not the viewers) to the
> > filesize that has worked for 6 years.  I believe it to be a matter of
> > respect towards the viewers and the owners of the servers.
>
> So in another six years when the average user can download, just
> guessing, a gigabyte a second you'll still find an image over 200K to be
> unacceptable?

well, my download-speed, in the past 5 years, has not increased significantly.
Maybe from an average of 100KB/s to an average of 150KB/s, I've never timed it,
but it certainly isn't much.

That aside, if the image looks almost as good lossy compressed to 50KB as it
does lossless compressed to 780KB, then yes, I will always consider the 780KB
version to be too large.

> Six years ago downloading a 1 meg image took me about six minutes.  Now
> it takes me roughly 2 seconds. I don't suspect that makes me too unusual
> around here.

oh, the time it takes to download isn't the problem.  For me it isn't anyway.  I
just think, and I know I'm repeating myself, that it's a matter of respect to
take the effort to downsize your images a bit before posting them.

> I don't see why it's necessary to keep the consensus filesize limit
> stagnate when progressing technology allows for exponentially faster
> download speeds, lower bandwidth costs, and cheaper file storage.

For the same reason they keep on researching compression-algorithms: it's better
to be able to store more on the same space than more on a larger space.  Let's
take MP3-players for example.  They're storage-capacity is increasing and the
prices are decreasing, but still every MP3-player uses a form of compression on
the music.  Is that a bad thing?  Should those playes go back to a lossless
format, like, what's it called, APE ?  Storage would immediately drop to about
1/5 the time of music, and the gain in quality will not be hearable for most
people.  So I don't consider that a good idea.  The same is true here: why
store, let's say, 1000 images at a perfect quality, when you can store 15600
(I'm taking the ratio 50/780) images at a near-perfect quality ?  Unless you
need the perfect quality for some reason, but in these cases, instead of a
perfect-quality version it's mostly more interesting for us all to provide us
with the source.

> I suppose I can just set my .jpg settings to the lowest
> compression/highest quality and not worry about it.

No, you should see what compressionlevel works best, that's my whole point...

Post a reply to this message