"Verm" <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote in message 
news:45f09073$1@news.povray.org...

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Verm wrote:
>>> I would like it if we could change the file size limit so that we can
>>> submit reasonable images at least 1024x768 (possibly larger).
>>> -- 
>> I've seen this point raised several times now, so I'd like to point
>> out that this is already allowed by the IRTC (and has been for some
>> time). Quoting the IRTC rules:
>>
>> <quote>
>> The JPEG file may have any width or height dimension, though we
>> recommend keeping it "reasonable". The only size restriction on
>> images now is the file size.
>> </quote>
>
> I did say increase the file size limit, I know there's no explicit image 
> dimensions limit :-) .

  Yes! Should we give this a go? I was thinking exactly this when Bruno 
re-posted his busy and well-worked-on 'POVLAB' image! Should we increase it 
to 500kb's or slightly lower? Say, 350kb's or 400kb's or so?


>
> I was suggesting the file size was too low to allow larger images without 
> compression artefacts, not that larger images were not allowed.
>
> I've rechecked through the irtc archives and seen that most images don't 
> seem have difficulty fitting in the 250k limit, (so the problem isn't that 
> great) but still I'd think some images with lots of hard edges might have 
> difficulty fitting 1024x768 or 1280x1024 into 250k. I just thought now 
> might be a good time to re-raise the issue.

    And a good time to raise this issue too. Thanks Verm.


>
> - has anyone found the 250k limit restrictive and does anyone think we 
> should soften the limit a bit? (bandwidth allowing of course)

   250k is ok, but let's all face it, in today's present climate with BB, 
<me, late starter>, upping it would be good. Bandwidth *shouldn't* be a 
problem.

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message