|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:45f09f1c@news.povray.org...
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> If it's no problem for you, Steve, I think it would be a good idea. 250k was
> no problem for me, but some more room to move in would be more confortable
> :-)
Hi,
i'm really looking forward to the new "*RTC" (whatever it's
going to be called - as long as it's not "the competition
formerly known as IRTC" ;)
Now this may be a bit much to ask for, but just as a thought
- if you're going to automate the whole site anyway, could
this new page accommodate the animations, too...?
-Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|