Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'tunnel.jpg' (681 KB)

Preview of image 'tunnel.jpg'

I didn't see your other images because they took too long to download.
This time I thought I'd be smart be reading messages off line, but it
took a while since all messages were in. Now I can see why. Again you
posted such a monster.
I don't mean to be rude but 681Kb seems a bit much for an image.
I think it is very impolite to do so and even more so since you're
obviously don't want us to even know your name.
Next time I'll be wise enough to skip your messages or skip the whole
group if this becomes common practice.

Blerk.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

"Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote :
>
> I don't mean to be rude but 681Kb seems a bit much for an image.
> I think it is very impolite to do so and even more so since you're
> obviously don't want us to even know your name.

    I sort of agree with this. If it were a special technique that required
such a large post, or maybe something as "awesome" as claimed, maybe... but
for what seems to be several views of a mostly black, simple reiterative ...
um.... thing... I really feel some compression was called for. I reduced it
to 155K without any decrease in visible quality.

    I got all the images in one download and I almost thought I had gotten
locked up and was ready to re-connect... then I found out it was different
views of the same thing!

Post a reply to this message

No wonder synchronizing took that long. I read all my news offline, and
today I got a sloppy sub 1 k/s speed.

I understand you have to view this in high res to get all the details,
but then you should post a small image here and refer to a url for the
higher res image.

sig.

non### [at] nonecom wrote:
> 
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

The image is really good.  You got some nice patterns there.

About the image file size, I recommend you render at a smaller resolution, and
increase the compression amount on the jpg.  Usually
you can change that when you save the jpg.  That should bring the size down so it's
easier to download.

- Slime


<non### [at] nonecom> wrote in message news:387e96a2@news.povray.org...
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Well.. I'm glad I have the limit of downloads at 250 K ... And locally cancel
all posts larger..

advicce is that you link to a web page and post smaller images around here.

(hmm, could it be possible/Adviceable for the news-master to limit this group to
say 300K max? Still more than I'd choose to download in a batch, but should be
enough for all images. Sure, egoistical ramblings here, but still.)


-- 
//Spider    --  [ spider@bahnhof.se ]-[ http://darkmere.wanfear.com/ ]
And the devil in black dress watches over
    My guardian angel walks away
Life is short and love is always over in the morning
    Black wind come carry me far away
            --"Sisters of Mercy" -- "Temple Of Love"

Post a reply to this message

> I don't mean to be rude but 681Kb seems a bit much for an image.
> I think it is very impolite to do so and even more so since you're
> obviously don't want us to even know your name.

I most definitely agree. I was able to view the other two but this one
kept jamming in the middle (I read online). The images could be much
smaller, and besides, the are three different views of the same scene and
IMHO the first was quite awesome and the second wasn't nearly as awesome
and as I have only seen a few lines of this one I can't say but the effect
has probably gotten old.
As for names I respect people's privacy but it makes the experience so
impersonal. I feel safe here as it is a private newsgroup, but on ICQ or
at websites I give as little info as possible. (BTW if you specify a
secondary email but not a primary it won't appear in the message
window--at least I think it won't) It's basically a trust issue; I'll send
info to places like Netscape if it's strongly requested.

Post a reply to this message

Spider wrote:
> 
> Well.. I'm glad I have the limit of downloads at 250 K ... And locally cancel
> all posts larger..
> 
> advicce is that you link to a web page and post smaller images around here.
> 
> (hmm, could it be possible/Adviceable for the news-master to limit this group to
> say 300K max? Still more than I'd choose to download in a batch, but should be
> enough for all images. Sure, egoistical ramblings here, but still.)

There is already a server imposed limit of 1 meg on messages posted here.
I would hate to see it restricted further and it really is a rare occurance
when it happens.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

I would welcome a 512KB limit.  After all, this isn't animation binaries which
are inherently larger.  Even 256KB (such computer numbers, aren't these?) could
be okay and promote redirected URL posting instead for larger file sizes which
can be so much quicker anyhow.

Bob

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:387FA99D.DE5789C3@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Spider wrote:
> >
> > Well.. I'm glad I have the limit of downloads at 250 K ... And locally
cancel
> > all posts larger..
> >
> > advicce is that you link to a web page and post smaller images around here.
> >
> > (hmm, could it be possible/Adviceable for the news-master to limit this
group to
> > say 300K max? Still more than I'd choose to download in a batch, but should
be
> > enough for all images. Sure, egoistical ramblings here, but still.)
>
> There is already a server imposed limit of 1 meg on messages posted here.
> I would hate to see it restricted further and it really is a rare occurance
> when it happens.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

omniVERSE wrote:
> 
> I would welcome a 512KB limit.  After all, this isn't animation binaries which
> are inherently larger.  Even 256KB (such computer numbers, aren't these?) could
> be okay and promote redirected URL posting instead for larger file sizes which
> can be so much quicker anyhow.

Again I would like to say that for the most part people that post images
here do post images with a file size that is acceptable to the visitors
of this group. Occasionally there is the odd image posted that exceeds
what is considered acceptable and for the most part when informed that
they are posting images that are unacceptably large the offenders come
around to our way of thinking. Personally I would like to continue with
peer pressured control rather than server side control. Once the limit
is set it is difficult to go back. If everyone here wants to jump on
the bandwagon and insist on a smaller file size limit I will bring up
this issue with the Server Admin. but only if there is a strong public
vote in favor of it.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message