 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
happy ???
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'volut2a2.jpg' (10 KB)
Preview of image 'volut2a2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhr net> schreef in bericht
news:42624b64@news.povray.org...
> happy ???
not at all...
as I said: "people should learn how to properly use JPG"
this 15KB post is a perfect example of wrong JPG-use. However, I managed to
downsize your original 570KB png down to a 50KB JPG without too much loss of
quality: http://sad.nostalg1c.org/volut2a2.jpg
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
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!
Maybe I should upgrade, but I'm waiting for technology to stop advancing
before I commit to buying something new.
Happy tracing all!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
this could be enough for show too... how to decide where are the limits ?
i say no limit is best limit.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'volut2a2b.jpg' (18 KB)
Preview of image 'volut2a2b.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
