 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in a further message, i'll give with more resolution...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'aniv.jpg' (41 KB)
Preview of image 'aniv.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
perhaps, you better like it like that...
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhr net> a écrit dans le message de news:
42641ca2@news.povray.org...
> in a further message, i'll give with more resolution...
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'aniv.png' (488 KB)
Preview of image 'aniv.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rha là là
JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
and you'll get good results.
Best,
S.
Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
ste### [at] stevenpigeoncom
ste### [at] videotronca
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> wrote in message
news:42641d15@news.povray.org...
> perhaps, you better like it like that...
> "Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> a écrit dans le message de
> news: 42641ca2@news.povray.org...
>> in a further message, i'll give with more resolution...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Steven Pigeon" <pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote in message
news:42643404$1@news.povray.org...
> Rha là là
>
> JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
> reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
> and you'll get good results.
>
> Best,
>
> S.
>
Even higher yeilds substantially better file sizes. Staring from his PNG,
97% quality settings in GIMP gave me a JPEG file size of 189kb and just
barely blurred the border between red and brown. No noticeable color
artifacts internal to a color. Where there is red, it's all a smooth
gradient. Nothing even near to the degraded quality of the original low
quality post, very similar to the quality of the PNG.
-r
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steven Pigeon a écrit :
> Rha là là
>
> JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
> reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
> and you'll get good results.
Oh... we've been trying to explain that to him for
about 5 years (at least). Waste of time.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I usually use 95% for digital photography, png
for lossless encoding of renders. Here, I'd still
post them as jpg.
But you're right. Some jpg engines are better
than others at the same quality rate (say, comparing
various 95% results for the same picture with
different software.) I would have expected the
quality to be rather similar, but it's not always.
--
Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
ste### [at] stevenpigeoncom
ste### [at] videotronca
"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote in message
news:42643d70@news.povray.org...
> "Steven Pigeon" <pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote in message
> news:42643404$1@news.povray.org...
>> Rha là là
>>
>> JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
>> reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
>> and you'll get good results.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> S.
>>
>
> Even higher yeilds substantially better file sizes. Staring from his PNG,
> 97% quality settings in GIMP gave me a JPEG file size of 189kb and just
> barely blurred the border between red and brown. No noticeable color
> artifacts internal to a color. Where there is red, it's all a smooth
> gradient. Nothing even near to the degraded quality of the original low
> quality post, very similar to the quality of the PNG.
>
> -r
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Steven Pigeon" <pig### [at] iroumontrealca> a écrit dans le message de news:
42643404$1@news.povray.org...
> Rha là là
>
> JPG is hardly as evil as you think it is. Set it to a
> reasonnably high setting, say 85 or 90% quality
> and you'll get good results.
if you are not interrested, you're not forced to read... let it to who likes
this. I force nobody and i will be happy if other people make the same.
if you enter in a thread, it's that you have love the title...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Mosen" <fab### [at] myshoesskynetbe> a écrit dans le message de
news:
> Oh... we've been trying to explain that to him for
> about 5 years (at least). Waste of time.
>
> Fabien.
je n'aime pas les gens plus royalistes que le roi : le serveur ne refuse pas
mon message, c'est donc que c'est un message valide... de toute manière,
tous les posts de la planète émis depuis les 10 dernières années finiront
bien un jour par être intégrés dans une minuscule carte à puce...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:15:24 +0200, Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
> if you are not interrested, you're not forced to read... let it to who
> likes this. I force nobody and i will be happy if other people make the
> same.
>
> if you enter in a thread, it's that you have love the title...
Apparently you've never used an offline reader. Just an observation, but
it's foolish to assume that everyone reads news the same way you do.
What's so hard about being considerate of other people? I have a fast
connection, but I have to admit that with this thread, I saw the same
image posted twice, and I wasted time trying to find the differences (as
my reader doesn't give me the filenames). So thanks for the 2 minutes of
my time you wasted by posting the same image twice in different formats.
It sure seems to me that the request for files posted to this server to be
limited is a reasonable request. If I were the news server admin, I'd
probably enforce a posting size limitation just because I know there are
people who only think about themselves, and not about the people they are
impacting by their thoughtless actions.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In other words "It's not my problem, it's yours".
And people think Americans are ignorant, arrogant, and inconsiderate.
No need to reply, you've been added to my twit filter. Have a nice day.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
> je n'aime pas les gens plus royalistes que le roi : le serveur ne refuse pas
> mon message, c'est donc que c'est un message valide... de toute manière,
> tous les posts de la planète émis depuis les 10 dernières années finiront
> bien un jour par être intégrés dans une minuscule carte à puce...
>
From a technical standpoint, you're right: your post is valid. From a
nettiquette standpoint it isn't. It's considered good manners not to
clutter the server disk space with unnecessarily large files. If the
same viewing quality can be achieved at a smaller size then it's just
polite to do it no matter what the server will accept.
Jerome
PS: since we are on an english newsgroup, it's also considered polite
to answer in english even if the person you're answering to is french
(or else reply just to him by email).
- --
******************************
* Jerome M. Berger *
* mailto:jbe### [at] ifrancecom *
* http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCZri9qIYJdJhyixIRAnWkAJ9UL+s7TxhtA00LjV5dUthuHtpfFQCfZnZh
wnbxkWLBjF6SnJqBtABezco=
=WVoX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
""Jérôme M. Berger"" <jbe### [at] ifrancecom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> From a technical standpoint, you're right: your post is valid. From a
> nettiquette standpoint it isn't.
it's what i was saying : " you make your netiquette"
you don't know what is good but you decide you are right imposing
restrictions
knowing that the quality will be necessarly lowest.
i don't want you and me live in a world at a lowest quality.
you certainly can't tollerate the sea because you can't empty it with a
spoon...
now, supports and hard disk are larger and larger ... we have to stop to
think like having a 20 Mo hard disk, while it is 200 Go and some To for the
servers...
we have the freedom then enjoy the freedom and stop to restrict all...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
pan### [at] nospamcom...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:15:24 +0200, Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
>
>> if you are not interrested, you're not forced to read... let it to who
>> likes this. I force nobody and i will be happy if other people make the
>> same.
>>
>> if you enter in a thread, it's that you have love the title...
>
> Apparently you've never used an offline reader. Just an observation, but
> it's foolish to assume that everyone reads news the same way you do.
>
now, we must stop to write books because you can't read all at your speed...
make like with books, read less and better !!!
i like little sentences. Then everybody must today make sentences with less
than ten words. I said...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
pan### [at] nospamcom...
> In other words "It's not my problem, it's yours".
>
> And people think Americans are ignorant, arrogant, and inconsiderate.
>
> No need to reply, you've been added to my twit filter. Have a nice day.
>
> Jim
somewhere, i try to think like you... so i may be ignorant, arrogant, and
inconsiderate.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eric CHAPUZOT wrote:
> ""Jérôme M. Berger"" <jbe### [at] ifrancecom> a écrit dans le message de news:
>
>>From a technical standpoint, you're right: your post is valid. From a
>>nettiquette standpoint it isn't.
>
>
> it's what i was saying : " you make your netiquette"
> you don't know what is good but you decide you are right imposing
> restrictions
> knowing that the quality will be necessarly lowest.
> i don't want you and me live in a world at a lowest quality.
> you certainly can't tollerate the sea because you can't empty it with a
> spoon...
>
> now, supports and hard disk are larger and larger ... we have to stop to
> think like having a 20 Mo hard disk, while it is 200 Go and some To for the
> servers...
> we have the freedom then enjoy the freedom and stop to restrict all...
>
>
You may have a point. We encourage you to take others into
consideration, but sure, if you feel that you need only acknowledge the
actual owner if the server as authorized to sanction you, go ahead. And
capacities are generally improving. You should understand that the
other issue is bandwidth cost, and, equally importantly, download
bandwidth for some visitors. With an international audience, there are
some visitors who are restricted to low capacity and there is absolutely
nothing they can do about it. So, as a compromise, it would be very
helpful to post the file size of your attachment in the subject so that
these people can make a reasonable decision about if or when to open the
post.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tell you what, post your own IP address, and we'll slashdot it - since
there's no reason for us to be considerate of your bandwidth. Bandwidth
is cheap, so get more.
Basic consideration is a fairly simple concept - treat others the way you
wish to be treated. Do you wish others to waste your time? To waste your
bandwidth? If you do, I'm sure that can be arranged, but I suspect that
you probably would not like it if someone wasted your time unnecessarily.
From the POVray FAQ in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions:
"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."
The owners of this server have thus *expressly* requested that posters not
waste space on the server unnecessarily. They have *expressly* requested
that images be converted to compressed JPEG format. They also *expressly*
state "Please be reasonable and don't paste a 10mb mesh include file into
the body of a message :)" - so it would seem to me that they do wish that
posters be considerate by not posting files that are larger than they need
to be.
In fact, in the referenced message
(http://news.povray.org/37711f4b.55412882%40news.povray.org), Alan very
specifically thanks posters for their *CONSIDERATION*. That would seem to
me to imply that he expects that people will in fact be *CONSIDERATE* of
others.
S'il vous plaît être plein d'égards; toutes vous accomplissez c'est à
vexé peupler. Cet c'est pas une compliqué requête.
(And yes, online translators really DO suck for the most part)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> schreef in bericht
news:42670717$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> now, supports and hard disk are larger and larger ... we have to stop to
> think like having a 20 Mo hard disk, while it is 200 Go and some To for
the
> servers...
> we have the freedom then enjoy the freedom and stop to restrict all...
>
>
Have you thought about bandwidth? I do not own a broadband connection, like
many other people on this planet, and I tend to ignore the larger files
because they take too much time to download. I might miss good stuff that
way, but there it is.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
thank you
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
pan### [at] nospamcom...
> Tell you what, post your own IP address, and we'll slashdot it - since
> there's no reason for us to be considerate of your bandwidth. Bandwidth
> is cheap, so get more.
>
> Basic consideration is a fairly simple concept - treat others the way you
> wish to be treated. Do you wish others to waste your time? To waste your
> bandwidth? If you do, I'm sure that can be arranged, but I suspect that
> you probably would not like it if someone wasted your time unnecessarily.
>
> From the POVray FAQ in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions:
>
> "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."
>
> The owners of this server have thus *expressly* requested that posters not
> waste space on the server unnecessarily. They have *expressly* requested
> that images be converted to compressed JPEG format. They also *expressly*
> state "Please be reasonable and don't paste a 10mb mesh include file into
> the body of a message :)" - so it would seem to me that they do wish that
> posters be considerate by not posting files that are larger than they need
> to be.
>
> In fact, in the referenced message
> (http://news.povray.org/37711f4b.55412882%40news.povray.org), Alan very
> specifically thanks posters for their *CONSIDERATION*. That would seem to
> me to imply that he expects that people will in fact be *CONSIDERATE* of
> others.
>
> S'il vous plaît être plein d'égards; toutes vous accomplissez c'est à
> vexé peupler. Cet c'est pas une compliqué requête.
>
> (And yes, online translators really DO suck for the most part)
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Tell you what, post your own IP address, and we'll slashdot it - since
> there's no reason for us to be considerate of your bandwidth. Bandwidth
> is cheap, so get more.
>
> Basic consideration is a fairly simple concept - treat others the way you
> wish to be treated. Do you wish others to waste your time? To waste your
> bandwidth? If you do, I'm sure that can be arranged, but I suspect that
> you probably would not like it if someone wasted your time unnecessarily.
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)
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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)
>
> -Xplo
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. Posting large files
infrequently is equivalent to posting small files frequently, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:59:58 -0700, Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 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.
Not everybody *has* the option. I didn't, it wasn't that I wasn't willing
to pay.
> 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.
No, but it is the decision of the owners, and it seems to me that they
would prefer not to have large attachments posted.
Sheesh, you'd think we were arguing over people getting shot. Go take a
chill pill.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> What you believe isn't really relevant...
Neither is what you believe. Your entire argument is an emotional appeal
for an arbitrary standard for which you have no logical justification.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> it's what i was saying : " you make your netiquette"
> you don't know what is good but you decide you are right imposing
> restrictions [...]
Of course the customs of this medium have developed over the past
twenty-odd years for the sole purpose of giving some snobs a way to
criticize Eric Chapuzot.
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
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.
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> You're suggesting that the majority have slow connections.
> I do not believe this to be the case.
Both of you: The majority don't need wheelchair ramps, either.
In all my sporadic participation in this group over the years, I've
rarely seen complaints that an image was compressed too far to enjoy,
and never any complaint that excessively compressed images were common.
So long as that's true, what harm is there in leaning a little bit
toward the convenience of the less blessed (like me last year)?
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> S'il vous plaît être plein d'égards; toutes vous accomplissez
> c'est à vexé peupler. Cet c'est pas une compliqué requête.
>
> (And yes, online translators really DO suck for the most part)
By Grabthar's hammer, you ain't kidding.
My attempt to clean it up: "S'il vous plaît, ayez l'égard; tout ce que
vous accomplissez, c'est vexer les gens. Comme requête ce n'est pas
compliquée."
--
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<G>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very simple justification - it takes little to be considerate of those
less fortunate than yourself.
But you and those like you seem to think that you're the only ones who
matter in the equation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anton Sherwood" <bro### [at] poboxcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
42687eb2$1@news.povray.org...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > S'il vous plaît être plein d'égards; toutes vous accomplissez
> > c'est à vexé peupler. Cet c'est pas une compliqué requête.
> >
> > (And yes, online translators really DO suck for the most part)
>
> By Grabthar's hammer, you ain't kidding.
>
> My attempt to clean it up: "S'il vous plaît, ayez l'égard; tout ce que
> vous accomplissez, c'est vexer les gens. Comme requête ce n'est pas
> compliquée."
ben en francais : S'il-vous-plait, ayez un peu d'égard pour les autres; tout
ce à quoi vous allez arriver, c'est de vexer les gens (le monde, le
peuple... votre monde si on veut éviter l'allure snob). C'est n'est pas si
compliqué que cela comme demande.
enfin, c'est comme ca que je le ferais passer en langage parlé.
then (yes, i don't know the word for "enfin" in american) it's like that ,
that i would translate in talking speak.
>
>
> --
> Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
4268c763@news.povray.org...
>
> "Anton Sherwood" <bro### [at] poboxcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 42687eb2$1@news.povray.org...
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > S'il vous plaît être plein d'égards; toutes vous accomplissez
>> > c'est à vexé peupler. Cet c'est pas une compliqué requête.
pas très loin de ce style y a:
"Vous faites chier le peuple, grave..."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> wrote in message
news:42680d1f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
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...
>
> "Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eric CHAPUZOT" <ech### [at] evhrnet> a écrit dans le message de
news:426a33cc$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
