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

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

"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...

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

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

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

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