"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> schreef in bericht
news:42627f1c@news.povray.org...
> this could be enough for show too... how to decide where are the limits ?

No, I consider that too low quality

> i say no limit is best limit.

well, as far as I know, there is no limit, but that doesn't mean it's a good
thing to post oversized images, imho.

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen wrote:

> "Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> schreef in bericht
> news:42624b64@news.povray.org...
> 
>>happy ???
> 
> 
> not at all...
> as I said: "people should learn how to properly use JPG"

The point he's trying to make, which you're either missing or ignoring, 
is that things such as "proper use of JPEG" or "acceptable filesize" are 
completely subjective (especially the former). Without absolute limits 
set by the server owner or by general consensus of the community, you 
have no grounds to say that a file is correctly or incorrectly encoded, 
except in extreme cases where everyone would agree that the limits had 
been exceeded (and since I downloaded the original image without 
problems with a fairly commonplace 256kbit connection, this is not the 
case), and obviously you two don't agree on a reasonable limit, or this 
discussion would not be taking place.

As bandwidth and storage space increases, acceptable limits for files 
will necessarily increase as well, at least until we reach a point of 
diminishing returns, so historic limits may not apply either.

If there are any official rules for this server that would be 
applicable, you would do well to point Eric toward them, and I'd be 
curious to see them as well. Otherwise, I would likewise be curious what 
the majority of community presently regards as acceptable.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:

> Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
> 
>> happy ???
> 
> Sorry, but I access the internet by 300 baud modem, and this file is
> much, much too large for me. Please restrict yourself to posting short
> textual descriptions of your renders instead.
> 
> -Xplo

POV can output ascii art you know. and it uses the same few characters over
and over so it should compress really well ;)

though i fully agree with Zeger. proper use of compression is a must. But I
also agree with you that "proper" is completely subjective. However usually
someone can look at a jpeg and determine if it has enough detail or if it
is splotchy. post "acceptably compressed" image here, post hi res on a
website if you really want people to see it in all it's perfect pixel
glory.

by the way png's compress. original poster should look into it.

-r

Post a reply to this message

Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:

> ... with a blue eye crying on the top left.

the base and stem look a little odd. Like there is no thickness to it. are
you using any IOR? or is there even any thickness to the object? photons
would be cool too :)

I suggest you look into a handy program called pngcrush, used for optimally
compressing PNG images.
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=1689

there are precompiled Windows executables if that is your platform.
otherwise, there are source code versions.

good luck! 

-r

Post a reply to this message

"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> schreef in bericht
news:4262880d@news.povray.org...
> The point he's trying to make, which you're either missing or ignoring,
> is that things such as "proper use of JPEG" or "acceptable filesize" are
> completely subjective (especially the former). Without absolute limits
> set by the server owner or by general consensus of the community, you
> have no grounds to say that a file is correctly or incorrectly encoded,
> except in extreme cases where everyone would agree that the limits had
> been exceeded (and since I downloaded the original image without
> problems with a fairly commonplace 256kbit connection, this is not the
> case), and obviously you two don't agree on a reasonable limit, or this
> discussion would not be taking place.
>
> As bandwidth and storage space increases, acceptable limits for files
> will necessarily increase as well, at least until we reach a point of
> diminishing returns, so historic limits may not apply either.

I don't see why it's necessary to increase acceptable filesize limits,
unless the quality of the images increases as well, which it doesn't.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say there's something wrong
with the content of the images, or that they're not worth looking at or
anything, I'm trying to say that they (the images) and we (the viewers) are
worth taking the time to compress them (the images, not the viewers) to the
filesize that has worked for 6 years.  I believe it to be a matter of
respect towards the viewers and the owners of the servers.

> If there are any official rules for this server that would be
> applicable, you would do well to point Eric toward them, and I'd be
> curious to see them as well. Otherwise, I would likewise be curious what
> the majority of community presently regards as acceptable.

As far as I know there aren't any official rules.

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen wrote:

> I don't see why it's necessary to increase acceptable filesize limits,
> unless the quality of the images increases as well, which it doesn't.
> Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say there's something wrong
> with the content of the images, or that they're not worth looking at or
> anything, I'm trying to say that they (the images) and we (the viewers) are
> worth taking the time to compress them (the images, not the viewers) to the
> filesize that has worked for 6 years.  I believe it to be a matter of
> respect towards the viewers and the owners of the servers.

So in another six years when the average user can download, just 
guessing, a gigabyte a second you'll still find an image over 200K to be 
unacceptable?

Six years ago downloading a 1 meg image took me about six minutes.  Now 
it takes me roughly 2 seconds. I don't suspect that makes me too unusual 
around here.

I don't see why it's necessary to keep the consensus filesize limit 
stagnate when progressing technology allows for exponentially faster 
download speeds, lower bandwidth costs, and cheaper file storage.

I suppose I can just set my .jpg settings to the lowest 
compression/highest quality and not worry about it.


Oskar

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen wrote:

> "Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> schreef in bericht
> news:4262880d@news.povray.org...
> 
>>As bandwidth and storage space increases, acceptable limits for files
>>will necessarily increase as well, at least until we reach a point of
>>diminishing returns, so historic limits may not apply either.
> 
> I don't see why it's necessary to increase acceptable filesize limits,
> unless the quality of the images increases as well, which it doesn't.

It does, in fact.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

i will try, but that's C and i've lot of other programs which are waiting 
for their compiling here...

... as a lot of people, i look for a reasonable solution to this story of 
pictures.


42628e45@news.povray.org...
> Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
>
>> ... with a blue eye crying on the top left.
>
> the base and stem look a little odd. Like there is no thickness to it. are
> you using any IOR? or is there even any thickness to the object? photons
> would be cool too :)
>
> I suggest you look into a handy program called pngcrush, used for 
> optimally
> compressing PNG images.
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=1689
>
> there are precompiled Windows executables if that is your platform.
> otherwise, there are source code versions.
>
> good luck!
>
> -r

Post a reply to this message

"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
news:4262b154$1@news.povray.org...
> Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>
> > "Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> schreef in bericht
> > news:4262880d@news.povray.org...
> >
> >>As bandwidth and storage space increases, acceptable limits for files
> >>will necessarily increase as well, at least until we reach a point of
> >>diminishing returns, so historic limits may not apply either.
> >
> > I don't see why it's necessary to increase acceptable filesize limits,
> > unless the quality of the images increases as well, which it doesn't.
>
> It does, in fact.

not as much

Post a reply to this message

"Oskar Bertrand" <nomail@none> wrote in message news:4262b119@news.povray.org...
> Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>
> > I don't see why it's necessary to increase acceptable filesize limits,
> > unless the quality of the images increases as well, which it doesn't.
> > Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say there's something wrong
> > with the content of the images, or that they're not worth looking at or
> > anything, I'm trying to say that they (the images) and we (the viewers) are
> > worth taking the time to compress them (the images, not the viewers) to the
> > filesize that has worked for 6 years.  I believe it to be a matter of
> > respect towards the viewers and the owners of the servers.
>
> So in another six years when the average user can download, just
> guessing, a gigabyte a second you'll still find an image over 200K to be
> unacceptable?

well, my download-speed, in the past 5 years, has not increased significantly.
Maybe from an average of 100KB/s to an average of 150KB/s, I've never timed it,
but it certainly isn't much.

That aside, if the image looks almost as good lossy compressed to 50KB as it
does lossless compressed to 780KB, then yes, I will always consider the 780KB
version to be too large.

> Six years ago downloading a 1 meg image took me about six minutes.  Now
> it takes me roughly 2 seconds. I don't suspect that makes me too unusual
> around here.

oh, the time it takes to download isn't the problem.  For me it isn't anyway.  I
just think, and I know I'm repeating myself, that it's a matter of respect to
take the effort to downsize your images a bit before posting them.

> I don't see why it's necessary to keep the consensus filesize limit
> stagnate when progressing technology allows for exponentially faster
> download speeds, lower bandwidth costs, and cheaper file storage.

For the same reason they keep on researching compression-algorithms: it's better
to be able to store more on the same space than more on a larger space.  Let's
take MP3-players for example.  They're storage-capacity is increasing and the
prices are decreasing, but still every MP3-player uses a form of compression on
the music.  Is that a bad thing?  Should those playes go back to a lossless
format, like, what's it called, APE ?  Storage would immediately drop to about
1/5 the time of music, and the gain in quality will not be hearable for most
people.  So I don't consider that a good idea.  The same is true here: why
store, let's say, 1000 images at a perfect quality, when you can store 15600
(I'm taking the ratio 50/780) images at a near-perfect quality ?  Unless you
need the perfect quality for some reason, but in these cases, instead of a
perfect-quality version it's mostly more interesting for us all to provide us
with the source.

> I suppose I can just set my .jpg settings to the lowest
> compression/highest quality and not worry about it.

No, you should see what compressionlevel works best, that's my whole point...

Post a reply to this message