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

Zeger Knaepen wrote:

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

My point is that as computer/internet technology progresses, your point 
becomes increasingly irrelevant.



Oskar

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen wrote:

> "Oskar Bertrand" <nomail@none> wrote in message news:4262b119@news.povray.org...
> 
>>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.

Your download speed is roughly four times mine.

FOUR TIMES.

Stop whining, you baby.

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion just ended.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:

> 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.

pngcrush is not the only software that will compress PNGs. Try an 
internet search for something that works on your computing platform.

Alternately, using high quality settings with a good JPEG compressor 
will give pretty good results, even though the compression is lossy.

I wouldn't worry too much about Zeger's objection, though, since he 
seems to be the only one complaining, and I for one don't think he's 
being very reasonable.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:

> Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> pngcrush is not the only software that will compress PNGs. Try an
> internet search for something that works on your computing platform.
> 
> Alternately, using high quality settings with a good JPEG compressor
> will give pretty good results, even though the compression is lossy.
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about Zeger's objection, though, since he
> seems to be the only one complaining, and I for one don't think he's
> being very reasonable.
> 
> -Xplo


He is being perfectly reasonable. it's really a waste of bandwidth and disk
space to post 700k when 200k or even 90k would suffice. 

these groups aren't intended to be an archive of perfect images. show me
that the posted image is significantly different as a 200k compressed image
and I'll drop my argument. 

common courtesy should be enough here. compress.

-r

Post a reply to this message

Oskar Bertrand wrote:

> Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> 
>> No, you should see what compressionlevel works best, that's my whole
>> point...
> 
> My point is that as computer/internet technology progresses, your point
> becomes increasingly irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Oskar

Apply that logic to other areas and it just becomes silly. "Hey we can clear
3 rainforests of trees in one week, when 10 years ago it took us a year!
Wow, thankyou technology." 

Just because you have the resources, doesn't mean you should waste them. in
most cases here, 600k is wasted when a posted image is 700k.

Like Zeger said, if the image is really interesting, people as for the
source, or people either ask for a larger version (most of the time the
creator hosts it off site it seems.) 

Resources, no matter what kind, are not infinite.

Post a reply to this message