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

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'volut2a2.png' (566 KB)

Preview of image 'volut2a2.png'

Eric CHAPUZOT nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-04-16 07:44:
> ... with a blue eye crying on the top left. 
> 
> 
> 
Now, just add an ior, dispersion and photons. It will give a sence of unrealistic
realism.

Alain

Post a reply to this message

I remember a time where 100KB images were considered too large for this
group...

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> I remember a time where 100KB images were considered too large for this
> group...

So what might be considered the current acceptable file size limitation? 
  I typically download at 500+KB/sec, so I have to make a concious 
effort to remember the plight of dialup modem users... if there are any 
of them left.  Thoughts?


Oskar

Post a reply to this message

"Oskar Bertrand" <nomail@none> schreef in bericht
news:4261a299@news.povray.org...
> Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> > I remember a time where 100KB images were considered too large for this
> > group...
>
> So what might be considered the current acceptable file size limitation?
>   I typically download at 500+KB/sec, so I have to make a concious
> effort to remember the plight of dialup modem users... if there are any
> of them left.  Thoughts?

I now consider >200KB images too large... And no offense, but mostly they're
not worth the large size...
(I'm not saying they're not nice images, I'm saying people should learn how
to properly use JPG)

Post a reply to this message

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] evhrnet> 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

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.

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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

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

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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

"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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] ifrancecom *
*  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

""Jérôme M. Berger"" <jbe### [at] ifrancecom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
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:
> ""Jérôme M. Berger"" <jbe### [at] ifrancecom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 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

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