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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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