These pictures are making for one heck of a large file size even compressed.
Should any future posts be uploaded to webspace and not here then? I too
have a render of this going now and thought I would only do it that way if
it seemed reasonable to upload at all.  What do you all think?  Bringing
this up because I can see it being redone many more times if new additions
are made.
Btw, this resolution is very good choice.  I'm going with 4000x3000 final
image but it's really not necessary, and the hf was only 1500 square and
seems fine enough to me.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:386E67E6.B739D98B@faricy.net...
> Here it is! Sorted by age too and no names covered up. Took 7:07:38 to
> render (and 00:18:00 for the hf at 4000x4000) with a peak mem of
> 184950473 bytes.

Ah, trying to outdo me, eh?!

j/k :)  This looks nice, but doesn't have the polished text finish of the
old one.  Also, I noticed that we ended up next to each other.  Hmph :)
Please try not to go into any crazy fits, please David?

Aha!  I think I'll do a 6400x4800 render just to spite you!  MUAHAHAHAHAHA!
Er. . .you will release the POV code, right? :)

Also, I live in Struthers, Ohio, just for the record.

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)

Post a reply to this message

omniVERSE <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:386e70f3@news.povray.org...
> These pictures are making for one heck of a large file size even
compressed.
> Should any future posts be uploaded to webspace and not here then? I too
> have a render of this going now and thought I would only do it that way if
> it seemed reasonable to upload at all.  What do you all think?  Bringing
> this up because I can see it being redone many more times if new additions
> are made.

I think it's okay.  It's our choice to download it.  The file size is
usually shown on news clients, and also, seeing 3200x2400 in the header will
tell you that it's big.

As long as it's not done for everything, I don't care, but if someone
displays a test image of a box in 3200x2400, then I think I'll go nuts :)

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)

Post a reply to this message

Ian Burgmyer wrote in message <386edd8a@news.povray.org>...
>As long as it's not done for everything, I don't care, but if someone
>displays a test image of a box in 3200x2400, then I think I'll go nuts :)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'BOX1.PNG' (21 KB)

Preview of image 'BOX1.PNG'

Most pictures are more complicated than this, I mean come on, a simple
RLE-compression could go on with one color for half the pic...

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

Ian Burgmyer wrote in message <386edd8a@news.povray.org>...
>>I think it's okay.  It's our choice to download it.  The file size is

Don't some people download and read offline?
What's wrong with a website. It deserves a page of it's own.

I actually plan to put up a website with stuff like this:
Pov related, not my personal images. But not at
the moment as I have two other(non-optional)
sites I have to do.

Personally I have a space concern. (!@#$% 500meg half-life!)

Peter

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:26:31 -0600, in message
<386e70f3@news.povray.org>, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>These pictures are making for one heck of a large file size even compressed.
>Should any future posts be uploaded to webspace and not here then? I too
>have a render of this going now and thought I would only do it that way if
>it seemed reasonable to upload at all.  What do you all think?  Bringing
>this up because I can see it being redone many more times if new additions
>are made.

  Bob, you've made a very good point. I don't see a purpose to uploading
these large images unless they are *final* renders of a given image.
They consume way too much server space for something that may need to be
re-rendered at least once every two weeks to remain current with
additions to the Age List.

  I would consider posting a .url where we could take a look for
ourselves. An alternative would be that any person who renders updates
to their own work would 'cancel' the previous image to help conserve
server space for something original. It's all a bit redundant. This
still doesn't address the concerns of people who download everything
from this news server and then disseminate it while offline. They are in
for some unplanned, lengthy online sessions :(

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

I resaved this "box" in both Gif and Jpg format and they were 36KB and 45KB
respectively.  I was a bit surprised to see that this 256 color Png was so
space thrifty.

Bob

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:386EFFCF.C2AC9E5D@faricy.net...
> Most pictures are more complicated than this, I mean come on, a simple
> RLE-compression could go on with one color for half the pic...
>

Post a reply to this message

"Ian Burgmyer" <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:386edd16@news.povray.org...
> Also, I live in Struthers, Ohio, just for the record.
>

Yet another change already, my name disk here can't get cold as wallpaper if
this keeps up  ;-)
Hey, it's tough to add people, I pity you David because all those arrays
have to be counted through and each inserted with the new info.  Wish I knew
a better way.  At least one thing I did was to make the array number a
variable so it could be easily changed all at once by declaring it at the
beginning of the namelisthf.pov.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Well, I still have a little space on a very inactive web site.
I could put this there, and make a link for it from the List
of Ages page. Would that be OK? If it is, could you give a 
thumbnail of this monument and some sort of credits to be 
displayed with it?

Alan Kong wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:26:31 -0600, in message
> <386e70f3@news.povray.org>, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> 
> >These pictures are making for one heck of a large file size even compressed.
> >Should any future posts be uploaded to webspace and not here then? I too
> >have a render of this going now and thought I would only do it that way if
> >it seemed reasonable to upload at all.  What do you all think?  Bringing
> >this up because I can see it being redone many more times if new additions
> >are made.
> 
>   Bob, you've made a very good point. I don't see a purpose to uploading
> these large images unless they are *final* renders of a given image.
> They consume way too much server space for something that may need to be
> re-rendered at least once every two weeks to remain current with
> additions to the Age List.
> 
>   I would consider posting a .url where we could take a look for
> ourselves. An alternative would be that any person who renders updates
> to their own work would 'cancel' the previous image to help conserve
> server space for something original. It's all a bit redundant. This
> still doesn't address the concerns of people who download everything
> from this news server and then disseminate it while offline. They are in
> for some unplanned, lengthy online sessions :(
> 
> --
> Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
> http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message