 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ross wrote:
> 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."
Speaking of silly, read above.
> 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.
Just think of all the dinosaurs that had to die for that 600k.
> Resources, no matter what kind, are not infinite.
If the server owner(s) become worried about the resource plundering of
excessively large images, I'm sure we'll receive some guidelines.
Oskar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ross wrote:
> these groups aren't intended to be an archive of perfect images.
Who told you that?
> common courtesy should be enough here. compress.
I'll make a note of that the next time I post on ross.binaries.images
Oskar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4262fc01@news.povray.org...
> 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.
>
if later you to include it in a poster or a tee-shirt, or a daily, or a
picture or something else needing more resolution, you allways think that's
not enough... everall, it's more relaxing for eyes and ressources in eyes
are limited to two.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4262f83f@news.povray.org...
> 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.
>
and waste the time to find the good ratio of jpeg is nothing...
when i make a 700 ko picture on my computer and i must do a 200 ko one, i
loose 200 ko more on my disk space and i loose twice time to explore my
pictures, and software to class pictures loose 100th time it should use...
and i don't speak about the risk to delete a good version for a wrong one.
i like the things made only one time, crude, not reformated, not complicated
for a poor result...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oskar Bertrand wrote:
> Ross wrote:
>
>> these groups aren't intended to be an archive of perfect images.
>
> Who told you that?
>
>> common courtesy should be enough here. compress.
>
> I'll make a note of that the next time I post on ross.binaries.images
>
>
>
> Oskar
from povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions, "Where can I post my binary
or text file?":
"Please consider converting 24-bit bitmap images, such as targas and
Windows .bmp, to JPEG (.jpg) file format which uses a compression
algorithm to reduce the file size considerably. This conserves space on
the news.povray.org server for everyone."
Sure sounds to me like they are asking us to be considerate of others,
nothing more.
-r
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
