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?

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.

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.

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


Oskar

Post a reply to this message