Deaken,

I was forced to cancel your post due to the extreme size of the files
you posted. Please try to use image compression when posting messages
here. We prefer it if your images are no larger than about 200k in
size to help those poor souls that still pay by the minute for their
internet connection and to help preserve space on the hard drive that
hosts this news server. Feel free to reduce the images sizes and repost
if you want but 2 megs was way out of line.

-- 
Ken Tyler - News Admin.

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Deaken,

Hey.

> I was forced to cancel your post due to the extreme size of the files
> you posted.

[snip]

> We prefer it if your images are no larger than about 200k in
> size

[snip]

> 2 megs was way out of line.

I was afraid of that.  In real life, they're not that big (see below). 
I suspected something was wrong when it took forever to upload them. 
Damn, I hate Netscape.
  
$ ls -1s --block-size=1 *.png
798720 delurk.png
405504 soliddemo.png
$ 

Similarly:

SOLIDD~1 PNG       402,225  01-13-02  9:17p soliddemo.png
DELURK   PNG       793,964  01-13-02  9:16p delurk.png

Anyone have any idea why that happened?

I'll throw them up on the web somewhere, I guess, and post a pointer.

I'm really sorry, folks.  All I can say in my defense is that that was
not intentional, and completely unexpected.

Deaken (trying to get slrn working to read/post here)

Post a reply to this message

Deaken wrote:

> I was afraid of that.  In real life, they're not that big (see below).
> I suspected something was wrong when it took forever to upload them.
> Damn, I hate Netscape.
> 
> $ ls -1s --block-size=1 *.png
> 798720 delurk.png
> 405504 soliddemo.png
> $

> Anyone have any idea why that happened?

I was guessing at the 2 meg limit. After I downloaded 1.35 megs I gave up
and the second image was only 1/3 through. Remember to add about 30% for
message encoding.
 
> I'll throw them up on the web somewhere, I guess, and post a pointer.

Or you can do as most people do and use image compression on the images
you post here. With .png you should be able to reduce your file sizes
by as much as 70% and still not lose image quality.
 
> I'm really sorry, folks.  All I can say in my defense is that that was
> not intentional, and completely unexpected.

No real harm done. We try not to cancel too many posts around here but
it happens occasionally.

-- 
Ken Tyler - News Admin.

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Deaken wrote:
> 
> > 798720 delurk.png
> > 405504 soliddemo.png
> 
> > Anyone have any idea why that happened?
> 
> I was guessing at the 2 meg limit. After I downloaded 1.35 megs I gave up
> and the second image was only 1/3 through. Remember to add about 30% for
> message encoding.

Yeah, but 800K->1.35M?  That's ridiculous.

> Or you can do as most people do and use image compression on the images
> you post here. With .png you should be able to reduce your file sizes
> by as much as 70% and still not lose image quality.

I have no good image editors, nor is this a computer where I can install
things at random.  I hope to correct both these situations very soon.

> No real harm done. We try not to cancel too many posts around here but
> it happens occasionally.

Definitely.  A 2M post is just pathetic.

Deaken

Post a reply to this message

>I hate Netscape
>800K->1.35M?  That's ridiculous.

I don't know if you blame Netscape for the extra file size, but it's not
Netscapes fault.. As rediculous as it is, this is just the way emails work..

Looking forward to see your images.  :o)

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

Hugo wrote:
> 
> >I hate Netscape
> >800K->1.35M?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I don't know if you blame Netscape for the extra file size, but it's not
> Netscapes fault.. As rediculous as it is, this is just the way emails work..

When I MIME-encode the images on a unix flavor (from shell and from an
email program, on both Linux and OpenBSD), I get the approximate 4/3
filesize that I expect.  When I let Netscape do it, it is ungodly huge. 
The same thing happens when I try to send them via email using
Netscape.  I will glady accept evidence that it's not Netscape's fault.

> Looking forward to see your images.  :o)

A friend has lent me some webspace to put them up.  They are currently
at http://www.dragon.org/fnargle/delurk.png and
http://www.dragon.org/fnargle/soliddemo.png

Don't expect too much.  Heh.

Deaken

Post a reply to this message

Deaken wrote:
> 
> Hugo wrote:
> >
> > >I hate Netscape
> > >800K->1.35M?  That's ridiculous.
> >
> > I don't know if you blame Netscape for the extra file size, but it's not
> > Netscapes fault.. As rediculous as it is, this is just the way emails work..
> 
> When I MIME-encode the images on a unix flavor (from shell and from an
> email program, on both Linux and OpenBSD), I get the approximate 4/3
> filesize that I expect.  When I let Netscape do it, it is ungodly huge.
> The same thing happens when I try to send them via email using
> Netscape.  I will glady accept evidence that it's not Netscape's fault.

Disable HTML message composition and check that your not uuencoding
instead of base64!

Otherwise, the image might get encoded twice: once for text/plain, and
another for text/html in the Mime multipart/alternative.
The Mime standard is crippled with the problem of referencing various
entities outside of each alternatives, so when Html is also generated
(because text/plain is usually mandatory), there is no simple solution
rather than putting the attachment in each alternative.


-- 
Non Sine Numine
http://grimbert.cjb.net/

Post a reply to this message

"J. Grimbert" wrote:
> 
> Deaken wrote:
> >
> > When I MIME-encode the images on a unix flavor (from shell and from an
> > email program, on both Linux and OpenBSD), I get the approximate 4/3
> > filesize that I expect.  When I let Netscape do it, it is ungodly huge.
> > The same thing happens when I try to send them via email using
> > Netscape.  I will glady accept evidence that it's not Netscape's fault.
> 
> Disable HTML message composition 

First thing I did, long before I first posted here.  I loathe HTML
posts/email.

> and check that your not uuencoding
> instead of base64!

Indeed I am not.  It's set to MIME.

I'm going to use this as the excuse to get off my ass and get slrn set
up to handle this server.

Deaken

Post a reply to this message

Deaken wrote:
> 
> A friend has lent me some webspace to put them up.  They are currently
> at http://www.dragon.org/fnargle/delurk.png and
> http://www.dragon.org/fnargle/soliddemo.png
> 
> Don't expect too much.  Heh.
> 

Not bad, but you should learn some important rules:

- spheres in checkered or similar environments should be reflective.
- there is an important shape missing in the platonic solids.

;-)

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Deaken wrote:
> >
> > A friend has lent me some webspace to put them up.  They are currently
> > at http://www.dragon.org/fnargle/delurk.png and
> > http://www.dragon.org/fnargle/soliddemo.png
> >
> > Don't expect too much.  Heh.
> 
> Not bad, but you should learn some important rules:
> 
> - spheres in checkered or similar environments should be reflective.

Damn.  I knew I had the textures wrong somehow.  :)

> - there is an important shape missing in the platonic solids.

Sorry, I don't get the joke.  My humor glands are insufficiently
caffeinated just yet.

In an attempt to play along, I'll go ahead and bite.  The d10?

> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
> things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Thanks for the radiosity tutorial, BTW.

Deaken

Post a reply to this message