"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> wrote in message
news:42680d1f$1@news.povray.org...
>

> > When subscribing to a group with a title of 'binaries.animations', it's
> > pretty obvious the files are going to be of a significant size.  When
> > subscribing to an 'images' group, it's not clear what the average size
is.
>
> curiously, i realize you are right and i was wrong...
> i think now that people who comes here are looking for 50-60 ko images.
>

I think from what other people have said, and from what other people post,
you are wrong in this belief. You are taking an over exagerated view of the
situation. If you quickly browse the file sizes of a lot of the recent
images, you see a lot of 130k and larger. Some outliers like the 500k or
800k images posted recently, and a few on the other end like "The Dreamer"
by Tim Nikias that compressed amazingly well to 27k and looks very nice.

Use your observational skills. Realize that the rules are fuzzy, but also
realize you are getting a lot of complaints because of your actions. To me
that says, compress your images, resize your image, post details of
interesting parts. You have many options, the one you have chosen doesn't
make people happy. Chose again.

Or, since technology is so advanced these days, run your own webserver. Host
your own images. Pay for your own bandwidth. Post a small teaser here, send
us links and we'll come look at them.

Post a reply to this message