On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:11:55 -0500, "Steven Pigeon"
<pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote:

>>
>> Perhaps. But it's my call, not yours.
>>
>
>As it is ours; see, I find it convenient to look
>at the pictures in this news group without going
>through more stages of decoding. Maybe you
>should wait until browsers/newsreaders support
>jpeg2000/yencode/whatever before using it.

That's just laziness. One extra little bit of effort and you can
easily see my posts. Dear me.

>
>True, Jpeg2000 is a better format, nonetheless,
>even if you render your picture at desktop resolutions
>(1280x1024 or more) you should post relatively
>small versions here, and small pictures (say, 800x600
>or less) can be efficiently compressed using baseline
>jpeg with higher quality settings.

The image size is the image size. That's the size it was meant to be
shown at. Have you no concept of scale and its artistic use?

>
>ftp/http links to the full resolution png versions (or
>other picture formats, whatever) should be given
>instead of the full versions here. I don't see myself
>posting a 2 or 3 Mb file to this newsgroup, even if
>such large messages are supported.

It was not the full version. The TIFF in the archive is the full
version.

>
>True, yencode is good, better than uuencode/base64,
>yet, not all newsreaders support it. It's cumbersome.

That's another matter of debate. I've used it and it definately is
quicker, but I've see discussion of how yEnc is basically a fix for
something that was not broken (MIME I tink they were referring to).

>
>
>Best,
>
>    S.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message