As Margus suggests, it could be a browser image viewing
limitation, you could test this by downloading one of your images
(Music 3) for example and saving it to a different name on your
HD, then open that saved jpg file with your prefered image
viewing utility, and see if the defects still exist.

I'v noticed that some images that I view on here don't look all
that clean or the texture looks off, but save the image to disk
to look at in more detail later, and find that in my usual image
viewer (not my browser), that the image looks much better.

Steve

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> I seriously doubt the images are modified on the server in any way. They are
> in plain text format, i.e. they are UUencoded. This increases file size, but
> decoded images are identical to their originals.
> I can only guess, but here's one possibility: you have Windows, you possibly
> have a high-colour (16 bit) desktop and you view the downloaded image in
> Netscape or OE. AFAIK, these programs don't dither images. Most dedicated
> image viewers do. Undithered 16-bit images often exhibit colour banding. So
> do some 24 bit images.
> 
> Margus
> 
> Ken wrote in message <370EE5D6.48DF615D@pacbell.net>...
> >
> >  I have seen ambiguities with images I have posted here that looked
> >different localy. I wonder if it might be related to the data storage
> >method used on this server. I am pretty sure that every thing here
> >is stored with compression applied. I recall Chris Cason mentioning
> >that all image file posted here were in fact stored as a form of
> >plain text file. I no too little to guess more on this issue.
> >
> >--
> >Ken Tyler
> >
> >mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message