 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
| and waste the time to find the good ratio of jpeg is nothing...
90% quality will almost always give good results (it does for your
image) and it reduces the size to 110k. That's not optimal but it
still a whole lot better than 700k
| 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
So, basically, you're saying that it's better to waste 500k
permanently on someone else's computer that to use 200k temporarily on
yours?
Jerome
PS: No, Zeger isn't the only one to think that images should be posted
in JPEG...
- --
******************************
* Jerome M. Berger *
* mailto:jbe### [at] ifrance com *
* http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCY/diqIYJdJhyixIRArBYAJoDbBSIHZTUAEi03d7W4LBrhjVI+wCeI9US
rOKjUbw4uKD5TR4KV+Gg7pw=
=fwZa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4263f760
> So, basically, you're saying that it's better to waste 500k
> permanently on someone else's computer that to use 200k temporarily on
> yours?
>
but if he wants , he can make a 200 ko with the 700 ko ...
it's more difficult to obtain the quality of 700ko starting the 200ko
i dream a format including original script ( few ko) and a formated type
(200ko for example)...
... here, it'll be difficult because the texture of glass need 2 Mo.
but who will want to compute the script here ???
next time, i'll think send low ko first and maximum ko after in the post and
after elements of the script...
if even i arrive there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
> 4263f760
>
>>So, basically, you're saying that it's better to waste 500k
>>permanently on someone else's computer that to use 200k temporarily on
>>yours?
>>
>
> but if he wants , he can make a 200 ko with the 700 ko ...
> it's more difficult to obtain the quality of 700ko starting the 200ko
>
I was talking about the server... Of course, anyone who views it can
make a higher compressed version if he wants it, but that wasn't my
point. Moreover, when people want higher quality versions of an image,
they usually ask for the source or the desktop size version, but
they're perfectly happy with JPEG even for a desktop pic.
Jerome
- --
******************************
* Jerome M. Berger *
* mailto:jbe### [at] ifrancecom *
* http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCZCHBqIYJdJhyixIRAvGyAJ47iuLejeBbpHSvwZhzTK5Sx/neGwCdFpV+
P+XW0uFfJGzF6JNnfeQKWHc=
=euNk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann
Subject: Re: File size (was "a glass...")
Date: 19 Apr 2005 12:58:11
Message: <426538a3@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
High!
Spock wrote:
> You have a 300 baud modem??? That must make life easier for you.
All I have are these two bare copper wires that I have to tap together
to encode my files for transmission... and don't even ask about download!
Yes, here in Afghanistan... as there is no working electricity grid, we
still use donkeys to deliver the electrons to be re-converted into data!
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Now playing: Parallels, 1977 live version (Yes) - on my donkey-driven
tape recorder!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> wrote:
> this could be enough for show too... how to decide where are the limits ?
>
> i say no limit is best limit.
How we creat a net? thanks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
