Jim Charter wrote:

> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 
>> Since I have enough bandwidth to download them in a reasonable space 
>> of time, I'd like others to post minimally-compressed or lossless 
>> images here.
>>
>> Therefore, I will post such images in the future.
>>
>> Please be considerate towards me and do not overcompress your images.
>>
>> (playing devil's advocate, here, though I do prefer minimally 
>> compressed or lossless images) 
> 
> Certainly to post poorly compressed, artifact plagued images is as much 
> a waste of resources as anything else.  There are several ways to 
> comprimise without suffering artifacts.

Not really. Any lossy compression will result in artifacts. What you 
mean to say is that the artifacts will be within an acceptable range.. 
but what that range IS, is completely subjective.

It's easy to put someone in a negative light by suggesting that they're 
being inconsiderate toward those with less bandwidth or storage space, 
but technology DOES march on, and it seems just as inconsiderate to me 
to insist on holding back those marching along with it because you can't 
or won't keep up.

Or to look at the issue another way, as Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) had 
it: "a good compromise leaves everyone mad."

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

In a group setting, consideration for the majority is the rule of thumb,
not consideration for the minority.

You want lossless images, ask the posters to post links to them on the web.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

as had said Fabien Mosen, we discussed for more than 5 years on this problem 
on news.zoo-logique.org
they've even make a special group for that on a funny demand.
they called it "chapuzot.zoo"
but nobody comes to post.
it could be interesting for povray animations which need better quality very 
very often...

wait and see


pan### [at] nospamcom...
> In a group setting, consideration for the majority is the rule of thumb,
> not consideration for the minority.
>
> You want lossless images, ask the posters to post links to them on the 
> web.
>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:22:12 +0200, Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:

> as had said Fabien Mosen, we discussed for more than 5 years on this
> problem on news.zoo-logique.org

Different server, different rules.

> they've even make a special group for that on a funny demand. they
> called it "chapuzot.zoo"
> but nobody comes to post.

Looks like it was created for you - but I don't see the problem with
posting links to higher quality images - I really don't.

> it could be interesting for povray animations which need better quality
> very very often...

When subscribing to a group with a title of 'binaries.animations', it's
pretty obvious the files are going to be of a significant size.  When
subscribing to an 'images' group, it's not clear what the average size is.
I would think that you'd *want* people to be interested in your images,
not pissed off because it took longer than expected to download them over
their 26.4Kbps dialup.  I know if I was stuck with a slow dialup (which
would've been less than 5 years ago), I'd be *very* unhappy with the waste
of my limited bandwidth.

So again, I ask, what's so difficult about being considerate for those
less fortunate?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> When subscribing to a group with a title of 'binaries.animations', it's
> pretty obvious the files are going to be of a significant size.  When
> subscribing to an 'images' group, it's not clear what the average size is.

curiously, i realize you are right and i was wrong...
i think now that people who comes here are looking for 50-60 ko images.

but i think too that's the right spirit of povray. But is there only one 
spirit for POV ?
we can compress the script too before publish.
(somewhere i think :
i take three weeks to advance a picture and it must be read in less than 3 
second...
very nice and encouraging... and i don't know my numbers : 21-5=16 days max
happynessly, i didn't only do that)

i know, i'm guilty everall.

Post a reply to this message

:-)

I guess it hit home for me in part because when I first subscribed to
these groups about a year ago, I went through every single image in the
group to see what others were doing - and it was very nice to see the work
that others using the software had hit.  At the same time, I wanted to go
through fairly quick, and even with my 3 Mbps DSL, some of the images took
"forever" (a relative term in this instance, meaning "longer than I
expected" - usually 3-5 seconds) to pull down so I could look at them -
and usually it was "oh, that's neat, on to the next one" - about 1-2
seconds viewing the image unless there was something intrinsicly
interesting about it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
> 
>> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>>
>>> Since I have enough bandwidth to download them in a reasonable space 
>>> of time, I'd like others to post minimally-compressed or lossless 
>>> images here.
>>>
>>> Therefore, I will post such images in the future.
>>>
>>> Please be considerate towards me and do not overcompress your images.
>>>
>>> (playing devil's advocate, here, though I do prefer minimally 
>>> compressed or lossless images) 
>>
>>
>> Certainly to post poorly compressed, artifact plagued images is as 
>> much a waste of resources as anything else.  There are several ways to 
>> comprimise without suffering artifacts.
> 
> 
> Not really. Any lossy compression will result in artifacts. What you 
> mean to say is that the artifacts will be within an acceptable range.. 
> but what that range IS, is completely subjective.
> 
No what I meant was things like: posting at reduced resolutions or 
posting detail shots, posting a link to the image somewhere else, or 
posting large files when necessary but noting the file size in the 
subject and recognizing that such postings could come at greater 
intervals than those of someone posting small files.

I understand and agree with your main point that consideration cuts both 
ways.  I thought I had reinforced my agreement in fact when I stated 
that a poorly compressed image amounts to an *equal* squandering of 
resources as does, say, posting an image in an unnecessarily bulky 
format or at a resolution unnecessary for the amount of detail in the image.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> In a group setting, consideration for the majority is the rule of thumb,
> not consideration for the minority.

You're suggesting that the majority have slow connections. I do not 
believe this to be the case.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> When subscribing to a group with a title of 'binaries.animations', it's
> pretty obvious the files are going to be of a significant size.  When
> subscribing to an 'images' group, it's not clear what the average size is.
> I would think that you'd *want* people to be interested in your images,
> not pissed off because it took longer than expected to download them over
> their 26.4Kbps dialup.  I know if I was stuck with a slow dialup (which
> would've been less than 5 years ago), I'd be *very* unhappy with the waste
> of my limited bandwidth.

Cry me a frickin' river. The internet's not a right, it's a privilege 
afforded with money. If you can't or won't pay up for a decent 
connection, tough.. you get left behind. That's how computing always works.

I'm convinced your argument for consideration really boils down to this: 
"I think I'm the only right one, so it's my way or the highway." And you 
know what? That's not your decision to make.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

What you believe isn't really relevant...

Jim

Post a reply to this message