 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: TonyB
Subject: Re: Cones and Cylinders Pic 3 ... Just Awesome....
Date: 14 Jan 2000 23:53:20
Message: <387ffd40@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rather than limit the size, I would suggest that everyone give fair warning
about file sizes in the title of the post. I try to do so, and I think
others should too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bill DeWitt
Subject: Re: Cones and Cylinders Pic 3 ... Just Awesome....
Date: 15 Jan 2000 00:08:30
Message: <388000ce@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote :
>
> Personally I would like to continue with
> peer pressured control rather than server side control.
Sure, that always seems to work. But I don't like the Idea of posting
links unless absolutely necessary. When I was new here I went back and got
all the past images. If some of them were on links, some of them might have
disappeared...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote:
>
> Rather than limit the size, I would suggest that everyone give fair warning
> about file sizes in the title of the post. I try to do so, and I think
> others should too.
Especialy if they start to exceed 100k in size. From what I can tell the
average image size around here for a 640x480 image is around 75k and for
the 800x600 they run around 120k. I find these sizes acceptable for
general posting but admit that some images simply compress better than
others depending on their content.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
> >
> > Personally I would like to continue with
> > peer pressured control rather than server side control.
>
> Sure, that always seems to work. But I don't like the Idea of posting
> links unless absolutely necessary. When I was new here I went back and got
> all the past images. If some of them were on links, some of them might have
> disappeared...
This is where the concept of post small here and post larger on your own
web site comes into play. You still get to see the peoples work if they
post a preview here and if you are really interested in the larger and
higher resolution image follow the link. You are right of course about
links that go bad and there is not much that can be done about that.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Peter Warren
Subject: Re: Cones and Cylinders Pic 3 ... Just Awesome....
Date: 15 Jan 2000 03:40:11
Message: <3880326b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote in message <388000ce@news.povray.org>...
>
>"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
>>
>> Personally I would like to continue with
>> peer pressured control rather than server side control.
>
> Sure, that always seems to work. But I don't like the Idea of posting
>links unless absolutely necessary. When I was new here I went back and got
>all the past images. If some of them were on links, some of them might have
>disappeared...
>
>
I think this is an excellent point. This is a valuable archive.
Self-policing seems to work fine most of the time.
Peter Warren
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: omniVERSE
Subject: Re: Cones and Cylinders Pic 3 ... Just Awesome....
Date: 15 Jan 2000 03:57:00
Message: <3880365c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hate to say it because sure enough if the general rule of smaller binaries was
to be followed there would never be a problem. I just don't think the idea of
peer pressure restriction can ever be done feasibly. Almost certain to
encounter persons who never see this subject talked about or happen to neglect
it for whatever reason (failed memories, large image fetishes [8-D], etc.).
Fact is that if there is a limit it can't be ignored. Just like at the
binaries.animations group, even though people grumble about the opposite thing
which is too small a space to upload to. All things being equal (balanced) a
larger animations limit and smaller still images limit should be considered at
least. Think of it, a person could upload a 1.3MB animation (1.75MB limit?)
and with the typical smaller numbers of them anyway it wouldn't increase the
space needed if the binaries.images group here were down to 0.5MB. The
foreseeable trouble there is the typically slower D/L instead of a faster
webspace one.
What do you all think about that as an example? Talk amongst yourselves... in
povray.general perhaps?
Bob
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:388### [at] pacbellnet...
>
> TonyB wrote:
> >
> > Rather than limit the size, I would suggest that everyone give fair warning
> > about file sizes in the title of the post. I try to do so, and I think
> > others should too.
>
> Especialy if they start to exceed 100k in size. From what I can tell the
> average image size around here for a 640x480 image is around 75k and for
> the 800x600 they run around 120k. I find these sizes acceptable for
> general posting but admit that some images simply compress better than
> others depending on their content.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
>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.
I must say that I too am in favour of a consensus on file sizes rather
than having thechnical limits. When I first posted here I sent a massive
.png file, I was new to POV and new to the internet in general, someone
pointed out that large images were frowned upon, so I took note and havn't
posted oversized images since. I think everyone starts off like this and
once it's mentioned to them in a friendly way they don't do it again.
I think thet the most recent offender is on a cable modem, (looks like one
of their IP addresses), and he/she doesn't notice that for modem users it would
take a long time to d/l.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:54:01 -0500, TonyB <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote:
>Rather than limit the size, I would suggest that everyone give fair warning
>about file sizes in the title of the post. I try to do so, and I think
>others should too.
If you d/l everything in one go as myself and many others do, then no amount
of warning ia a subject line will solve any problem.
We d/l all the articles at once because we can't afford to be online for long
it would on some days take over an hour to go through these groups deciding
which posts to read and whick not to read judging by the subject line,
we're charged by the second for the use of the phone line.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I must say that I too am in favour of a consensus on file sizes rather
> than having thechnical limits. When I first posted here I sent a massive
> .png file, I was new to POV and new to the internet in general, someone
> pointed out that large images were frowned upon, so I took note and havn't
> posted oversized images since. I think everyone starts off like this and
> once it's mentioned to them in a friendly way they don't do it again.
Hehe, yep, I did that...
Although my first post was very JPEG-unfriendly and all I had to compress it was NS
or unregistered GifCon32... But later I found the copy of Photo Deluxe not
PhotoShop :-( that came with my brother's computer, but I almost never use that
anymore because we got Micrografx... I had no idea that a high-palette GIF would f*
up in NS... So then came lots of apologizing... and another post... and they were
Huge... Oh well :-)
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Anton Sherwood
Subject: Re: Cones and Cylinders Pic 3 ... Just Awesome....
Date: 12 Mar 2000 06:35:51
Message: <38CB8227.A81B2576@pobox.com>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Once upon a time I had a rentmate who played rock tuba. He played a
tape of one of his compositions for me. He also showed me bits of the
surreal movie script he was working on. I got much the same "huh?"
reaction from his works as from this image.
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* br0### [at] p0b0xcom *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
