"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> wrote in message
news:42680d1f$1@news.povray.org...
>

> > 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.
>

I think from what other people have said, and from what other people post,
you are wrong in this belief. You are taking an over exagerated view of the
situation. If you quickly browse the file sizes of a lot of the recent
images, you see a lot of 130k and larger. Some outliers like the 500k or
800k images posted recently, and a few on the other end like "The Dreamer"
by Tim Nikias that compressed amazingly well to 27k and looks very nice.

Use your observational skills. Realize that the rules are fuzzy, but also
realize you are getting a lot of complaints because of your actions. To me
that says, compress your images, resize your image, post details of
interesting parts. You have many options, the one you have chosen doesn't
make people happy. Chose again.

Or, since technology is so advanced these days, run your own webserver. Host
your own images. Pay for your own bandwidth. Post a small teaser here, send
us links and we'll come look at them.

Post a reply to this message

42697254$1@news.povray.org...
> "Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> wrote in message

> Or, since technology is so advanced these days, run your own webserver. 
> Host
> your own images. Pay for your own bandwidth. Post a small teaser here, 
> send
> us links and we'll come look at them.

i said that i was now aware that, people who comes here, wanted 50-70 ko 
max...
i recognize that i was wrong... what do you want more ?

in fact, povray must include an option like +fj85... or +fjb ( for special 
format for Binaries.Images)
if i have time, i'll study to make it... but don't dream.
proposes it to povray.programming.

Post a reply to this message

"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
news:42682074@news.povray.org...
> 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

You are suggesting that slow connection is the only reason to post
compressed images. It is one valid reason. The other is the owners ask us to
be considerate and post jpegs.

Why not use compression if doing so even at 99% quality reduces the file
size to acceptable size? (acceptable depending on the person viewing, the
image being compressed, etc...)

-r

Post a reply to this message

"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> wrote in message
news:42697630$1@news.povray.org...
>

> 42697254$1@news.povray.org...
> > "Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> wrote in message
>
> > Or, since technology is so advanced these days, run your own webserver.
> > Host
> > your own images. Pay for your own bandwidth. Post a small teaser here,
> > send
> > us links and we'll come look at them.
>
> i said that i was now aware that, people who comes here, wanted 50-70 ko
> max...
> i recognize that i was wrong... what do you want more ?

Sorry. I incorrectly interpreted your meaning. My fault.

>
> in fact, povray must include an option like +fj85... or +fjb ( for special
> format for Binaries.Images)
> if i have time, i'll study to make it... but don't dream.
> proposes it to povray.programming.
>

An interesting idea, but POV-Ray is not an image editor. There exist plenty
of third-party tools to do the same job. Even ways to automate the process
so you don't have to manually do it everytime.

I Apologize for the previous misunderstanding.

-ross

Post a reply to this message

42697657$1@news.povray.org...

> Why not use compression if doing so even at 99% quality reduces the file
> size to acceptable size? (acceptable depending on the person viewing, the
> image being compressed, etc...)
>
that's what is annoying, those image are not pure povray's images only, but 
povray's images plus an other indeterminated compressor.
there is certainly a better format for images issued of povray.

Post a reply to this message

Ross wrote:

> "Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
> news:42682074@news.povray.org...
> 
>>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
> 
> 
> You are suggesting that slow connection is the only reason to post
> compressed images. It is one valid reason. The other is the owners ask us to
> be considerate and post jpegs.
> 
> Why not use compression if doing so even at 99% quality reduces the file
> size to acceptable size? (acceptable depending on the person viewing, the
> image being compressed, etc...)

Lossy compression is a compromise, nothing more.. always has been. In 
many cases, it's one that we still have to live with.. but we are 
reaching a point with technology and infrastructure where it's feasible, 
if not necessarily advisable - and isn't that the point of contention, 
more or less? - to post PNGs, which would have no JPEG artifacts whatsoever.

Yes, a JPEG saved at really high quality with a good compressor will 
appear perfect to the casual observer.. but is this REALLY something we 
need to continue to concern ourselves with?

Jim's arguments about "consideration" for other users are pure bunk; I 
have debunked them and I'm sick of replying to him. The only issue I see 
here is consideration for the server owner, who must, after all, pay for 
the necessary bandwidth and storage. If it's not yet feasible for him to 
support storing and serving a large number of PNGs, I can certainly 
respect that, but I wonder whether this is still the case, as it was 
when the server use guidelines were written.

Unlike Eric, I've understood the pro-JPEG argument all along, and I'm 
well aware of the pros, cons, and proper usage of JPEG. I was building 
web pages back when loading time was a serious concern, so I had to be. 
But unlike some of the others here, I don't see it as something to keep 
around indefinitely.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:38:01 -0700, Xplo Eristotle wrote:

> Jim's arguments about "consideration" for other users are pure bunk; I
> have debunked them and I'm sick of replying to him. The only issue I see
> here is consideration for the server owner, who must, after all, pay for
> the necessary bandwidth and storage. 

You know what, you're absolutely right.  Screw the little guy, it's not
your problem or mine.  When I get around to it, I'll post my images on the
server, and because they're *so* stunning, I'll post uncompressed
TGAs at 1400x1050, because that's what I rendered with.

Seriously, though, I started with the point that it was the owner or
moderator of the server who requested it, and wandered from that.  Thanks
for pointing that out.

> If it's not yet feasible for him to
> support storing and serving a large number of PNGs, I can certainly
> respect that, but I wonder whether this is still the case, as it was when
> the server use guidelines were written.

Then perhaps someone should *ask* if those guidelines still apply.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

pan### [at] nospamcom...

> You know what, you're absolutely right.  Screw the little guy, it's not
> your problem or mine.  When I get around to it, I'll post my images on the
> server, and because they're *so* stunning, I'll post uncompressed
> TGAs at 1400x1050, because that's what I rendered with.
>

seriously, i'm asking me now what is the real problem ?
there is five to ten pictures per week, here.
i think you must force people to post with a minimum of quality too.
usb-key support now 1-4 Go... so the best informations will perhaps take an 
other way than the net.
... and it'll be certainly a good thing.
en francais : " c'est scier la branche sur laquelle on est assis"

Post a reply to this message

news:426a33cc$1@news.povray.org...
>

> pan### [at] nospamcom...
> seriously, i'm asking me now what is the real problem ?
The problem is taking in account people who can't have dsl or cable
connection. Some countries/regions have only dialup connection.You were
talked about that a million of times but you don't want to listen. Even if
they are a minority (which is still to be proved) they deserve some respect.
> there is five to ten pictures per week, here.
So what?
> i think you must force people to post with a minimum of quality too.
The minimum of quality begins when one tries to improve his image at the
source. This needs a minimal effort.
> usb-key support now 1-4 Go... so the best informations will perhaps take
an
> other way than the net.
So post usb keys by snail mail if you want


Marc

Post a reply to this message

"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
news:4269a6fa@news.povray.org...
> Ross wrote:
>
> > "Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
> > news:42682074@news.povray.org...
> >
> >>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
> >
> >
> > You are suggesting that slow connection is the only reason to post
> > compressed images. It is one valid reason. The other is the owners ask
us to
> > be considerate and post jpegs.
> >
> > Why not use compression if doing so even at 99% quality reduces the file
> > size to acceptable size? (acceptable depending on the person viewing,
the
> > image being compressed, etc...)
>
> Lossy compression is a compromise, nothing more.. always has been. In
> many cases, it's one that we still have to live with.. but we are
> reaching a point with technology and infrastructure where it's feasible,
> if not necessarily advisable - and isn't that the point of contention,
> more or less? - to post PNGs, which would have no JPEG artifacts
whatsoever.

> -Xplo

I have problem with png, not that it matters to anyone here since it isn't
my server. Lossless compression is excellent in my opinion. Posting
obscenely large png's is just what I have issue with. I guess I'm really
just an advocate of using personal web hosting space if what you want to
show to the viewer is a high resolution, high quality rendering. a 400x300
teaser posting to p.b.i would be enough to get me to click on a link to a
high quality version.

anyway, we're all probably beating a dead horse at this point. we have our
opinions, others have theirs and I'm fine with it. I'd agree to whatever
rules are set by the owner. Until then, happy raytracing :)

-r

Post a reply to this message