 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote
What are you doing posting 256 bit gifs? 4 bits is more than enough!
Seriously, all this hoopla for this image? My cat once created POV code for
a better looking image when he walked accross the keyboard...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:15:55 -0700, "Anonymous" <nob### [at] herecom>
wrote:
>"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote
>
>What are you doing posting 256 bit gifs? 4 bits is more than enough!
>
>Seriously, all this hoopla for this image? My cat once created POV code for
>a better looking image when he walked accross the keyboard...
>
I love it when the worms come out of the wood work with their little
Anon. badges shiney and bright on their dull little foreheads.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice. Thanks.
Good thing you didn't y-encode it :p
--
Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
pig### [at] iroumontrealca
"Jason" <JSc### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:404c852a@news.povray.org...
> Well I did you all a favor and took a meir 10 sec out of my boring day and
> converted it to a standard jpeg
>
> "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> news:ni2n401tpehp1gm71pvcosj68nl33t60dg@4ax.com...
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:34:33 -0500, "Steven Pigeon"
<pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote:
>Nice. Thanks.
>
>Good thing you didn't y-encode it :p
Lazy, lazy, lazy.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> writes:
> On 08 Mar 2004 06:43:50 +0200, Artis Rozentals <art### [at] aaaapollolv>
> wrote:
>
> >This one has distracting artifacts. I suggest adjusting image size,
> >color depth, compression algorithms, and compression options for each
> >case, instead of an "99kB, 48bpp JPEG2000" fits all approach.
>
> Better than JPEG though.
You keep claiming that, but I yet I have to see any improvement, blame
it on my 24bit display configuration if you like. All I see are 99kB
posts where 50kB would have been enough.
--
http://arose.hopto.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09 Mar 2004 01:58:57 +0200, Artis Rozentals <art### [at] aaaapollolv>
wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> writes:
>
>> On 08 Mar 2004 06:43:50 +0200, Artis Rozentals <art### [at] aaaapollolv>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This one has distracting artifacts. I suggest adjusting image size,
>> >color depth, compression algorithms, and compression options for each
>> >case, instead of an "99kB, 48bpp JPEG2000" fits all approach.
>>
>> Better than JPEG though.
>
>You keep claiming that, but I yet I have to see any improvement, blame
>it on my 24bit display configuration if you like. All I see are 99kB
>posts where 50kB would have been enough.
Perhaps. But it's my call, not yours.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:itsp40hpt7aec3e67p76mrilrvasghh3ju@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:15:55 -0700, "Anonymous" <nob### [at] herecom>
> wrote:
>
> >"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote
> >
> >What are you doing posting 256 bit gifs? 4 bits is more than enough!
> >
> >Seriously, all this hoopla for this image? My cat once created POV code
for
> >a better looking image when he walked accross the keyboard...
> >
>
> I love it when the worms come out of the wood work with their little
> Anon. badges shiney and bright on their dull little foreheads.
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:06op40d53sla9vl0s9a3lphvfuo9pgeado@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:37:30 -0600, "Jason" <JSc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> >Well I did you all a favor and took a meir 10 sec out of my boring day
and
> >converted it to a standard jpeg
> >
> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> >news:ni2n401tpehp1gm71pvcosj68nl33t60dg@4ax.com...
> >
>
> Typical. Another rude person steps up. What on Earth gives you the
> right to do this?
>
> Is it any wonder I am rude to people on this group when this sort of
> thing happens?
>
> By the way, notice the huge file size just to get an equivalent to
> what I originally posted. And it's not even 16-bit.
Oooooh, what did I say. Predictable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Perhaps. But it's my call, not yours.
>
As it is ours; see, I find it convenient to look
at the pictures in this news group without going
through more stages of decoding. Maybe you
should wait until browsers/newsreaders support
jpeg2000/yencode/whatever before using it.
True, Jpeg2000 is a better format, nonetheless,
even if you render your picture at desktop resolutions
(1280x1024 or more) you should post relatively
small versions here, and small pictures (say, 800x600
or less) can be efficiently compressed using baseline
jpeg with higher quality settings.
ftp/http links to the full resolution png versions (or
other picture formats, whatever) should be given
instead of the full versions here. I don't see myself
posting a 2 or 3 Mb file to this newsgroup, even if
such large messages are supported.
True, yencode is good, better than uuencode/base64,
yet, not all newsreaders support it. It's cumbersome.
Best,
S.
--
Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
pig### [at] iroumontrealca
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:nr2q40pfdgkqhgdpoebvtvm97k88u1abpg@4ax.com...
> On 09 Mar 2004 01:58:57 +0200, Artis Rozentals <art### [at] aaaapollolv>
> wrote:
>
> >IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> writes:
> >
> >> On 08 Mar 2004 06:43:50 +0200, Artis Rozentals <art### [at] aaaapollolv>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >This one has distracting artifacts. I suggest adjusting image size,
> >> >color depth, compression algorithms, and compression options for each
> >> >case, instead of an "99kB, 48bpp JPEG2000" fits all approach.
> >>
> >> Better than JPEG though.
> >
> >You keep claiming that, but I yet I have to see any improvement, blame
> >it on my 24bit display configuration if you like. All I see are 99kB
> >posts where 50kB would have been enough.
> --------------------------------
> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
> http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> Despite the fact that is actually quite a good depth reduction you
> have done - DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN.
Irfanview ;)
I already had it, but not the plugin pack.
(BTW, I do have to make a plug for this little prog: It's the best darned
freeware viewer I have seen yet ;) )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
