"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
news:4269a6fa@news.povray.org...
> Ross wrote:
>
> > "Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
> > news:42682074@news.povray.org...
> >
> >>Jim Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In a group setting, consideration for the majority is the rule of
thumb,
> >>>not consideration for the minority.
> >>
> >>You're suggesting that the majority have slow connections. I do not
> >>believe this to be the case.
> >>
> >>-Xplo
> >
> >
> > You are suggesting that slow connection is the only reason to post
> > compressed images. It is one valid reason. The other is the owners ask
us to
> > be considerate and post jpegs.
> >
> > Why not use compression if doing so even at 99% quality reduces the file
> > size to acceptable size? (acceptable depending on the person viewing,
the
> > image being compressed, etc...)
>
> Lossy compression is a compromise, nothing more.. always has been. In
> many cases, it's one that we still have to live with.. but we are
> reaching a point with technology and infrastructure where it's feasible,
> if not necessarily advisable - and isn't that the point of contention,
> more or less? - to post PNGs, which would have no JPEG artifacts
whatsoever.

> -Xplo

I have problem with png, not that it matters to anyone here since it isn't
my server. Lossless compression is excellent in my opinion. Posting
obscenely large png's is just what I have issue with. I guess I'm really
just an advocate of using personal web hosting space if what you want to
show to the viewer is a high resolution, high quality rendering. a 400x300
teaser posting to p.b.i would be enough to get me to click on a link to a
high quality version.

anyway, we're all probably beating a dead horse at this point. we have our
opinions, others have theirs and I'm fine with it. I'd agree to whatever
rules are set by the owner. Until then, happy raytracing :)

-r

Post a reply to this message