Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
I just posted a few shots from my Sony Digital Mavica Floppy drive
camera over on the binary group. I can store 17 of that quality on one 1.44M floppy. Mike Scooby Don't wrote: > > On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 03:32:07 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> > wrote: > > >That was me, it was really dark on my system, so I lightened it. > > > >I will post it back dark. > > It's fine by me either way, I just saw the smaller pic I didn't see > the larger pic redone. If you zoom in close on the larger pic you can > see my friends fiancee' sitting in the back. > > >My Corel made it a 30.9K jpg. > > I didn't play with it, I just posted it as he gave it to me. > > >And NO, you are incorrect, Yenc is an abortion that the maker even says > >shouldn't be public, a friend stole it from him and went nuts with it. > > I don't know about that but I do know that yEnc is now supported by > everyone except Outlook Express. Larger binary files really need yEnc > and some groups the FAQ will even tell you yEnc only. Try posting 400+ > Megs a day like some peopel do and you will find out very quickly that > UUEncoding doesn't cut it. I stayed away from yEnc for a long time. > But it's much better now. > Bill Gates stole DOS from Digital Research, doesn't make it right but > everyone still used DOS. > > >I mean really, my Corel made it a 31K file, your Yenc made it a 600K > >file..... > > Not at all that was the original unedited size that was given to me. > yEnc does not change the overall file size. Basically it adds more > characters per post so you cut down on a lot of wasted space. > It works, I use it all the time. But in no way did it alter that file. > I'm not suggesting you give up Outlook Express and switch to yEnc but > I am saying yEnc is more efficient and wastes a lot less bandwidth. > Which is good for everyone. > > >Scooby Don't wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:09:16 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Groan.... > >> > > >> >Yenc just doesn't work for most folks. > >> > >> yEnc works fine if people don't rely on OutHouse Express. > >> > >> All the large binary groups use yEnc because it saves an enormous > >> amount of time of very large downloads. > >> > >> >What photo editor are you using? > >> > > >> >Crap man I use Corel photo shop and my Sony digital camera and both will > >> >put 17 'excellent' quality 4x6's prints on one floppy. I do mean > >> >excellent too! They will do 'good' quality 8x10's and 'excellent' > >> >quality 640x480x 300dpi 20K images up. > >> > >> The photo was sent to me and I posted it as is. someone lightened it > >> up and it honestly looks like crap on my system. > >> There were 2 pics. > >> > >> >400 to 600M is a bitmap or *.bmp, not a *.jpg. > >> > >> It was 600K not M > >> > >> 600K is jpeg size all the way. |
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
I just posted a few shots from my Sony Digital Mavica Floppy drive
camera over on the binary group. I can store 17 of that quality on one 1.44M floppy. Mike Scooby Don't wrote: > > On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 03:32:07 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> > wrote: > > >That was me, it was really dark on my system, so I lightened it. > > > >I will post it back dark. > > It's fine by me either way, I just saw the smaller pic I didn't see > the larger pic redone. If you zoom in close on the larger pic you can > see my friends fiancee' sitting in the back. > > >My Corel made it a 30.9K jpg. > > I didn't play with it, I just posted it as he gave it to me. > > >And NO, you are incorrect, Yenc is an abortion that the maker even says > >shouldn't be public, a friend stole it from him and went nuts with it. > > I don't know about that but I do know that yEnc is now supported by > everyone except Outlook Express. Larger binary files really need yEnc > and some groups the FAQ will even tell you yEnc only. Try posting 400+ > Megs a day like some peopel do and you will find out very quickly that > UUEncoding doesn't cut it. I stayed away from yEnc for a long time. > But it's much better now. > Bill Gates stole DOS from Digital Research, doesn't make it right but > everyone still used DOS. > > >I mean really, my Corel made it a 31K file, your Yenc made it a 600K > >file..... > > Not at all that was the original unedited size that was given to me. > yEnc does not change the overall file size. Basically it adds more > characters per post so you cut down on a lot of wasted space. > It works, I use it all the time. But in no way did it alter that file. > I'm not suggesting you give up Outlook Express and switch to yEnc but > I am saying yEnc is more efficient and wastes a lot less bandwidth. > Which is good for everyone. > > >Scooby Don't wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:09:16 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Groan.... > >> > > >> >Yenc just doesn't work for most folks. > >> > >> yEnc works fine if people don't rely on OutHouse Express. > >> > >> All the large binary groups use yEnc because it saves an enormous > >> amount of time of very large downloads. > >> > >> >What photo editor are you using? > >> > > >> >Crap man I use Corel photo shop and my Sony digital camera and both will > >> >put 17 'excellent' quality 4x6's prints on one floppy. I do mean > >> >excellent too! They will do 'good' quality 8x10's and 'excellent' > >> >quality 640x480x 300dpi 20K images up. > >> > >> The photo was sent to me and I posted it as is. someone lightened it > >> up and it honestly looks like crap on my system. > >> There were 2 pics. > >> > >> >400 to 600M is a bitmap or *.bmp, not a *.jpg. > >> > >> It was 600K not M > >> > >> 600K is jpeg size all the way. |
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
I just posted a few shots from my Sony Digital Mavica Floppy drive
camera over on the binary group. I can store 17 of that quality on one 1.44M floppy. Mike Scooby Don't wrote: > > On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 03:32:07 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> > wrote: > > >That was me, it was really dark on my system, so I lightened it. > > > >I will post it back dark. > > It's fine by me either way, I just saw the smaller pic I didn't see > the larger pic redone. If you zoom in close on the larger pic you can > see my friends fiancee' sitting in the back. > > >My Corel made it a 30.9K jpg. > > I didn't play with it, I just posted it as he gave it to me. > > >And NO, you are incorrect, Yenc is an abortion that the maker even says > >shouldn't be public, a friend stole it from him and went nuts with it. > > I don't know about that but I do know that yEnc is now supported by > everyone except Outlook Express. Larger binary files really need yEnc > and some groups the FAQ will even tell you yEnc only. Try posting 400+ > Megs a day like some peopel do and you will find out very quickly that > UUEncoding doesn't cut it. I stayed away from yEnc for a long time. > But it's much better now. > Bill Gates stole DOS from Digital Research, doesn't make it right but > everyone still used DOS. > > >I mean really, my Corel made it a 31K file, your Yenc made it a 600K > >file..... > > Not at all that was the original unedited size that was given to me. > yEnc does not change the overall file size. Basically it adds more > characters per post so you cut down on a lot of wasted space. > It works, I use it all the time. But in no way did it alter that file. > I'm not suggesting you give up Outlook Express and switch to yEnc but > I am saying yEnc is more efficient and wastes a lot less bandwidth. > Which is good for everyone. > > >Scooby Don't wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:09:16 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Groan.... > >> > > >> >Yenc just doesn't work for most folks. > >> > >> yEnc works fine if people don't rely on OutHouse Express. > >> > >> All the large binary groups use yEnc because it saves an enormous > >> amount of time of very large downloads. > >> > >> >What photo editor are you using? > >> > > >> >Crap man I use Corel photo shop and my Sony digital camera and both will > >> >put 17 'excellent' quality 4x6's prints on one floppy. I do mean > >> >excellent too! They will do 'good' quality 8x10's and 'excellent' > >> >quality 640x480x 300dpi 20K images up. > >> > >> The photo was sent to me and I posted it as is. someone lightened it > >> up and it honestly looks like crap on my system. > >> There were 2 pics. > >> > >> >400 to 600M is a bitmap or *.bmp, not a *.jpg. > >> > >> It was 600K not M > >> > >> 600K is jpeg size all the way. |
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Approximately 10/3/03 22:38, Scooby Don't uttered for posterity:
> 600K is jpeg size all the way. > 600K is an extremely large JPEG, usually the sign of an undercompressed JPEG or operator error. For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K range and smaller. |
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Approximately 10/3/03 22:38, Scooby Don't uttered for posterity:
> 600K is jpeg size all the way. > 600K is an extremely large JPEG, usually the sign of an undercompressed JPEG or operator error. For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K range and smaller. |
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Approximately 10/3/03 22:38, Scooby Don't uttered for posterity:
> 600K is jpeg size all the way. > 600K is an extremely large JPEG, usually the sign of an undercompressed JPEG or operator error. For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K range and smaller. |
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Approximately 10/4/03 00:32, Mike Romain uttered for posterity:
> That was me, it was really dark on my system, so I lightened it. This used to happen all the time when you see images on a PC that were made on the older MACs with PhotoShop. With a good PC graphic arts monitor and color profiling enabled I do't see it so much any more. > > I will post it back dark. > > My Corel made it a 30.9K jpg. About right. I usually compress in Corel by doing a Save AS and then open the saved image in something like Lview Pro in addition to a web browser. As soon as you see banding in the continuous tones, back it off to two previous compressions. > > And NO, you are incorrect, Yenc is an abortion that the maker even says > shouldn't be public, a friend stole it from him and went nuts with it. Sucketh royally and loudly, verily it doth. Corel 7 had one of the coolest compressions, a fractal based variety, wavelet, which could almost always compress better even than 4:4:4 JPEG with less banding, but it just never caught on. |
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Approximately 10/4/03 00:32, Mike Romain uttered for posterity:
> That was me, it was really dark on my system, so I lightened it. This used to happen all the time when you see images on a PC that were made on the older MACs with PhotoShop. With a good PC graphic arts monitor and color profiling enabled I do't see it so much any more. > > I will post it back dark. > > My Corel made it a 30.9K jpg. About right. I usually compress in Corel by doing a Save AS and then open the saved image in something like Lview Pro in addition to a web browser. As soon as you see banding in the continuous tones, back it off to two previous compressions. > > And NO, you are incorrect, Yenc is an abortion that the maker even says > shouldn't be public, a friend stole it from him and went nuts with it. Sucketh royally and loudly, verily it doth. Corel 7 had one of the coolest compressions, a fractal based variety, wavelet, which could almost always compress better even than 4:4:4 JPEG with less banding, but it just never caught on. |
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Approximately 10/4/03 00:32, Mike Romain uttered for posterity:
> That was me, it was really dark on my system, so I lightened it. This used to happen all the time when you see images on a PC that were made on the older MACs with PhotoShop. With a good PC graphic arts monitor and color profiling enabled I do't see it so much any more. > > I will post it back dark. > > My Corel made it a 30.9K jpg. About right. I usually compress in Corel by doing a Save AS and then open the saved image in something like Lview Pro in addition to a web browser. As soon as you see banding in the continuous tones, back it off to two previous compressions. > > And NO, you are incorrect, Yenc is an abortion that the maker even says > shouldn't be public, a friend stole it from him and went nuts with it. Sucketh royally and loudly, verily it doth. Corel 7 had one of the coolest compressions, a fractal based variety, wavelet, which could almost always compress better even than 4:4:4 JPEG with less banding, but it just never caught on. |
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Lon Stowell did pass the time by typing:
> Approximately 10/3/03 22:38, Scooby Don't uttered for posterity: > > >> 600K is jpeg size all the way. >> > 600K is an extremely large JPEG, usually the sign of an > undercompressed JPEG or operator error. > > For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality > ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K > range and smaller. mmm.. pr0n! :) Not that I ever actually look at that stuff.. nope.. nope, not at all. My images run about 800-900K for a 1600X1200 jpg with no compression. Website images, scaled to 200X200 and compressed to 80% run about 5-6K. Windows XP has a real handy resize tool. Just left click on the jpg and select "Resize Pictures" -- DougW |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands