Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
10-04-2003, 02:47 PM
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
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.
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.
10-04-2003, 02:47 PM
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 11:13:33 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>I use Netscape....
Seriously Mike, why not move up to Agent? It's free for 30 days and
it's a great program. Very easy to use and it's the most used
Newsreader on the Net especially for multi-part binary files. Free
Agent is no where near as good. I sarted using Agent because i
disliked OE and I've never looked back. XNews is free but very
non-intuitive.
PowerPost has a UUE and a yEnc version and are among the best posting
programs out there. I used to post a lot of Jpegs back when I was into
anime and nothing is easier than PowerPost to send up hundreds of
pics. I still use it but now for the big Doramas.
Just a thought.
>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.
wrote:
>I use Netscape....
Seriously Mike, why not move up to Agent? It's free for 30 days and
it's a great program. Very easy to use and it's the most used
Newsreader on the Net especially for multi-part binary files. Free
Agent is no where near as good. I sarted using Agent because i
disliked OE and I've never looked back. XNews is free but very
non-intuitive.
PowerPost has a UUE and a yEnc version and are among the best posting
programs out there. I used to post a lot of Jpegs back when I was into
anime and nothing is easier than PowerPost to send up hundreds of
pics. I still use it but now for the big Doramas.
Just a thought.
>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.
10-04-2003, 02:47 PM
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 11:13:33 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>I use Netscape....
Seriously Mike, why not move up to Agent? It's free for 30 days and
it's a great program. Very easy to use and it's the most used
Newsreader on the Net especially for multi-part binary files. Free
Agent is no where near as good. I sarted using Agent because i
disliked OE and I've never looked back. XNews is free but very
non-intuitive.
PowerPost has a UUE and a yEnc version and are among the best posting
programs out there. I used to post a lot of Jpegs back when I was into
anime and nothing is easier than PowerPost to send up hundreds of
pics. I still use it but now for the big Doramas.
Just a thought.
>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.
wrote:
>I use Netscape....
Seriously Mike, why not move up to Agent? It's free for 30 days and
it's a great program. Very easy to use and it's the most used
Newsreader on the Net especially for multi-part binary files. Free
Agent is no where near as good. I sarted using Agent because i
disliked OE and I've never looked back. XNews is free but very
non-intuitive.
PowerPost has a UUE and a yEnc version and are among the best posting
programs out there. I used to post a lot of Jpegs back when I was into
anime and nothing is easier than PowerPost to send up hundreds of
pics. I still use it but now for the big Doramas.
Just a thought.
>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.
10-04-2003, 02:47 PM
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 11:13:33 -0400, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>I use Netscape....
Seriously Mike, why not move up to Agent? It's free for 30 days and
it's a great program. Very easy to use and it's the most used
Newsreader on the Net especially for multi-part binary files. Free
Agent is no where near as good. I sarted using Agent because i
disliked OE and I've never looked back. XNews is free but very
non-intuitive.
PowerPost has a UUE and a yEnc version and are among the best posting
programs out there. I used to post a lot of Jpegs back when I was into
anime and nothing is easier than PowerPost to send up hundreds of
pics. I still use it but now for the big Doramas.
Just a thought.
>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.
wrote:
>I use Netscape....
Seriously Mike, why not move up to Agent? It's free for 30 days and
it's a great program. Very easy to use and it's the most used
Newsreader on the Net especially for multi-part binary files. Free
Agent is no where near as good. I sarted using Agent because i
disliked OE and I've never looked back. XNews is free but very
non-intuitive.
PowerPost has a UUE and a yEnc version and are among the best posting
programs out there. I used to post a lot of Jpegs back when I was into
anime and nothing is easier than PowerPost to send up hundreds of
pics. I still use it but now for the big Doramas.
Just a thought.
>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.
10-04-2003, 03:38 PM
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Then why didn't you, at least crop and resize the pictures?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Scooby Don't wrote:
>
> Yeah that's no problem to send you the original.
>
> 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.
>
> Sure I'll send it to you but remember I can also squeeze the file size
> down myself.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Scooby Don't wrote:
>
> Yeah that's no problem to send you the original.
>
> 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.
>
> Sure I'll send it to you but remember I can also squeeze the file size
> down myself.
10-04-2003, 03:38 PM
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Then why didn't you, at least crop and resize the pictures?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Scooby Don't wrote:
>
> Yeah that's no problem to send you the original.
>
> 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.
>
> Sure I'll send it to you but remember I can also squeeze the file size
> down myself.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Scooby Don't wrote:
>
> Yeah that's no problem to send you the original.
>
> 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.
>
> Sure I'll send it to you but remember I can also squeeze the file size
> down myself.
10-04-2003, 03:38 PM
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
Then why didn't you, at least crop and resize the pictures?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Scooby Don't wrote:
>
> Yeah that's no problem to send you the original.
>
> 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.
>
> Sure I'll send it to you but remember I can also squeeze the file size
> down myself.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Scooby Don't wrote:
>
> Yeah that's no problem to send you the original.
>
> 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.
>
> Sure I'll send it to you but remember I can also squeeze the file size
> down myself.
10-04-2003, 03:41 PM
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:16:00 GMT, Lon Stowell
<LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote:
>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.
It was a Raw file unedited, I have stated that several times. I could
have recompressed it myself and it would have been smaller. In the
future I will do that.
> For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality
> ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K
> range and smaller.
I am unfamiliar with ---- images as I don't deal with them at all. But
I will take your word for it. I do agree that 300K is a decent sized
file however there are many factors why it would be so large.
<LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote:
>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.
It was a Raw file unedited, I have stated that several times. I could
have recompressed it myself and it would have been smaller. In the
future I will do that.
> For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality
> ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K
> range and smaller.
I am unfamiliar with ---- images as I don't deal with them at all. But
I will take your word for it. I do agree that 300K is a decent sized
file however there are many factors why it would be so large.
10-04-2003, 03:41 PM
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:16:00 GMT, Lon Stowell
<LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote:
>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.
It was a Raw file unedited, I have stated that several times. I could
have recompressed it myself and it would have been smaller. In the
future I will do that.
> For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality
> ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K
> range and smaller.
I am unfamiliar with ---- images as I don't deal with them at all. But
I will take your word for it. I do agree that 300K is a decent sized
file however there are many factors why it would be so large.
<LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote:
>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.
It was a Raw file unedited, I have stated that several times. I could
have recompressed it myself and it would have been smaller. In the
future I will do that.
> For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality
> ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K
> range and smaller.
I am unfamiliar with ---- images as I don't deal with them at all. But
I will take your word for it. I do agree that 300K is a decent sized
file however there are many factors why it would be so large.
10-04-2003, 03:41 PM
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Not a Jeep but pretty cool (0/2)
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:16:00 GMT, Lon Stowell
<LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote:
>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.
It was a Raw file unedited, I have stated that several times. I could
have recompressed it myself and it would have been smaller. In the
future I will do that.
> For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality
> ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K
> range and smaller.
I am unfamiliar with ---- images as I don't deal with them at all. But
I will take your word for it. I do agree that 300K is a decent sized
file however there are many factors why it would be so large.
<LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote:
>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.
It was a Raw file unedited, I have stated that several times. I could
have recompressed it myself and it would have been smaller. In the
future I will do that.
> For comparison, a large ISP notes that even the high quality
> ---- images on their binary groups are typically in the 300K
> range and smaller.
I am unfamiliar with ---- images as I don't deal with them at all. But
I will take your word for it. I do agree that 300K is a decent sized
file however there are many factors why it would be so large.