DougW

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

DougW

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

Lon Stowell

Approximately 10/4/03 10:27, DougW uttered for posterity:

> 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.

In the course of doing file system planning for a major news
provider, knowledge of the typical file size can be important.
>
> 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.

I usually keep my raw images in non-lossy compression since they
slowly build up artifacts if I am stupid enough to edit the source
file, which unfortunately has been known to happen. And post
web images at whatever compression level has no visible banding
or block artifacts, minus a level for safety. Plus I edit on a
22 inch graphics corrected CRT, with dpi correction so I can see
the artifacts better.
>
> Windows XP has a real handy resize tool. Just left click on the jpg
> and select "Resize Pictures"
>
Netscape 7 has similar menu item. Lets just say that real photo
editing software does a better job....

Lon Stowell

Approximately 10/4/03 10:27, DougW uttered for posterity:

> 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.

In the course of doing file system planning for a major news
provider, knowledge of the typical file size can be important.
>
> 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.

I usually keep my raw images in non-lossy compression since they
slowly build up artifacts if I am stupid enough to edit the source
file, which unfortunately has been known to happen. And post
web images at whatever compression level has no visible banding
or block artifacts, minus a level for safety. Plus I edit on a
22 inch graphics corrected CRT, with dpi correction so I can see
the artifacts better.
>
> Windows XP has a real handy resize tool. Just left click on the jpg
> and select "Resize Pictures"
>
Netscape 7 has similar menu item. Lets just say that real photo
editing software does a better job....

Lon Stowell

Approximately 10/4/03 10:27, DougW uttered for posterity:

> 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.

In the course of doing file system planning for a major news
provider, knowledge of the typical file size can be important.
>
> 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.

I usually keep my raw images in non-lossy compression since they
slowly build up artifacts if I am stupid enough to edit the source
file, which unfortunately has been known to happen. And post
web images at whatever compression level has no visible banding
or block artifacts, minus a level for safety. Plus I edit on a
22 inch graphics corrected CRT, with dpi correction so I can see
the artifacts better.
>
> Windows XP has a real handy resize tool. Just left click on the jpg
> and select "Resize Pictures"
>
Netscape 7 has similar menu item. Lets just say that real photo
editing software does a better job....

Dave Milne

Shame Sony (and others) cant come up with a USB solution - those flash
memory sticks are cheap.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F7EF11E.F7ACA2C6@sympatico.ca...
: 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.

Dave Milne

Shame Sony (and others) cant come up with a USB solution - those flash
memory sticks are cheap.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F7EF11E.F7ACA2C6@sympatico.ca...
: 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.

Dave Milne

Shame Sony (and others) cant come up with a USB solution - those flash
memory sticks are cheap.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F7EF11E.F7ACA2C6@sympatico.ca...
: 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.

Scooby Don't

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 04:38:53 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>Even better, 'you' send me the original via email like I asked for.

Yeah that's no problem to send you the original.

>I will post it back to the binary group in Corel Photohouse jpg format
>and we wil see the size difference for sure.

Sure because the photo I have is unedited. That has nothing to do with
yEnc. yEnc is an encoding scheme just more efficient than UUE. I can
crop the pic down as well. This is a pic the guy snaped on his digital
camera when he was over there.

>The copy I have was emailed to me, so who knows what software he was
>using....

Sure I'll send it to you but remember I can also squeeze the file size
down myself.



>
>Mike
>
>Mike Romain wrote:
>>
>> That was me, it was really dark on my system, so I lightened it.
>>
>> I will post it back dark.
>>
>> My Corel made it a 30.9K jpg.
>>
>> 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 mean really, my Corel made it a 31K file, your Yenc made it a 600K
>> file.....
>>
>> I will post it back without touching it up using Corel Photohouse.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> 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.

Scooby Don't

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 04:38:53 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>Even better, 'you' send me the original via email like I asked for.

Yeah that's no problem to send you the original.

>I will post it back to the binary group in Corel Photohouse jpg format
>and we wil see the size difference for sure.

Sure because the photo I have is unedited. That has nothing to do with
yEnc. yEnc is an encoding scheme just more efficient than UUE. I can
crop the pic down as well. This is a pic the guy snaped on his digital
camera when he was over there.

>The copy I have was emailed to me, so who knows what software he was
>using....

Sure I'll send it to you but remember I can also squeeze the file size
down myself.



>
>Mike
>
>Mike Romain wrote:
>>
>> That was me, it was really dark on my system, so I lightened it.
>>
>> I will post it back dark.
>>
>> My Corel made it a 30.9K jpg.
>>
>> 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 mean really, my Corel made it a 31K file, your Yenc made it a 600K
>> file.....
>>
>> I will post it back without touching it up using Corel Photohouse.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> 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.