Xplo Eristotle wrote:

> Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
> 
>> i will try, but that's C and i've lot of other programs which are waiting
>> for their compiling here...
>> 
>> ... as a lot of people, i look for a reasonable solution to this story of
>> pictures.
> 
> pngcrush is not the only software that will compress PNGs. Try an
> internet search for something that works on your computing platform.
> 
> Alternately, using high quality settings with a good JPEG compressor
> will give pretty good results, even though the compression is lossy.
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about Zeger's objection, though, since he
> seems to be the only one complaining, and I for one don't think he's
> being very reasonable.
> 
> -Xplo


He is being perfectly reasonable. it's really a waste of bandwidth and disk
space to post 700k when 200k or even 90k would suffice. 

these groups aren't intended to be an archive of perfect images. show me
that the posted image is significantly different as a 200k compressed image
and I'll drop my argument. 

common courtesy should be enough here. compress.

-r

Post a reply to this message