Can people please not post bitmaps in the gallery.

[LordTheNightKnight]

It's not only a pain for dail-up users, but they also eat up server space. I downloaded a pic that was about 1.16MB, and when I converted it to jpeg, just with MS Paint, it was just 78.6KB, about 1/15 the size of that pic.

 

I don't want the server space, and therefore costs, to go bad for us because some of us don't want to bother making a pic web friendly.

[White Fox]

Lord...

 

I agree with you totally, although I don't think it is that people are lazy. For some reason folks never learn how to send photos on the net. And won't try.

 

If anyone should find a photo that is overly large and easily converted down please give our mods a pm. Also, if you could change it to something consuming less space it would certainly help us out a great deal.

 

Lastly. Members... Every time you send a photo over email you should send it to yourself first. If it covers more than half of your screen you are not sending it the proper way. If you are on slow speed, a properly sent photo will send in about 3.5 seconds, and be received in similar time. This is not the time to discuss the proper methods but if some of you need help let us know.

 

W

[Guest]

There are some very large files in The Gallery but I have not posted any bitmap forated ones to my knowlege? Normally my Linux will upchuck a bitmap file. I'm not sure how it functions "inside" the Gallery or The Fur Den in general?

 

I will be on the aleart for file types in the future by, if only temporarily, downloading each picture into my computer. I always check them by clicking each up anyway. My computer will let me know without question if it is bimap.

 

What about png files? I ran across a few of those while cleaning out the .bmp files.

 

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

".png" files are the same as ".gif" files. They are "index color" picture formats with compression.

 

.gifs were first used by Compuserve, way back in the days of Foo-Bye. They became a popular method for sending pictures. Then, the guys who invented the compression algorithm (three guys from Sperry/Unisys) named Lempe, Ziff and Welch, went to court and won a software patent infringement lawsuit to force anybody who wanted to use "LZW Compression" in their computer programs to pay them (and Unisys) lots of money.

 

This is one reason why programs like Photoshop cost so darned much money!

 

Well, along came some computer geeks who invented a better way to compress picture files. They created the "Packaged Network Graphics" format. (i.e.: "png") They registered the program's copyright under the Free Software Foundation's public license system. Anybody who wants to use png in their program can do so for free.

 

Judicious use of png compression can result in pictures that take up as much as 1/3 LESS space on your hard drive (or on the network) yet still maintain the same (or better) quality.

 

There are still a few browsers and other programs that don't fully support .png pictures, (Namely, Microsoft Internet Exploder.) But more than 90% of the people on the internet can read and process png files as easily as gifs.

 

So, if there is a question of whether we should allow png pictures in our gallery, I would suggest we DO.

 

There is a caveat, however: There are two kinds of pngs... 8-bit and 24-bit. 8-bit pngs aren't the most optimal format for continuous tone pictures. (e.g.: photographs) They are best for drawings and graphics with limited tonal range. If you want photo quality you have to use 24-bit png.

 

You're probably better off to use jpeg because you bypass that question.

 

Finally, I vote to ban the use of bitmap files. They take up HUGE amounts of space and the quality/filesize ratio isn't nearly as good as jpeg or even png-24.

[Guest]

Worker;

 

As to bmp? I think with this post we have.

 

I have not done an exhauestive search yet of the gallery but it has started and I think we are now on the alert.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[LordTheNightKnight]

".png" files are the same as ".gif" files. They are "index color" picture formats with compression.

 

.gifs were first used by Compuserve, way back in the days of Foo-Bye. They became a popular method for sending pictures. Then, the guys who invented the compression algorithm (three guys from Sperry/Unisys) named Lempe, Ziff and Welch, went to court and won a software patent infringement lawsuit to force anybody who wanted to use "LZW Compression" in their computer programs to pay them (and Unisys) lots of money.

 

This is one reason why programs like Photoshop cost so darned much money!

 

Well, along came some computer geeks who invented a better way to compress picture files. They created the "Packaged Network Graphics" format. (i.e.: "png") They registered the program's copyright under the Free Software Foundation's public license system. Anybody who wants to use png in their program can do so for free.

 

Judicious use of png compression can result in pictures that take up as much as 1/3 LESS space on your hard drive (or on the network) yet still maintain the same (or better) quality.

 

There are still a few browsers and other programs that don't fully support .png pictures, (Namely, Microsoft Internet Exploder.) But more than 90% of the people on the internet can read and process png files as easily as gifs.

 

So, if there is a question of whether we should allow png pictures in our gallery, I would suggest we DO.

 

There is a caveat, however: There are two kinds of pngs... 8-bit and 24-bit. 8-bit pngs aren't the most optimal format for continuous tone pictures. (e.g.: photographs) They are best for drawings and graphics with limited tonal range. If you want photo quality you have to use 24-bit png.

 

You're probably better off to use jpeg because you bypass that question.

 

Finally, I vote to ban the use of bitmap files. They take up HUGE amounts of space and the quality/filesize ratio isn't nearly as good as jpeg or even png-24.

 

Certain pics can work as PNGs, like my avatar (even though I made it as a gif before I discovered how more useful PNGs are (unless you want to animate them).

[Worker 11811]

Currently, as it stands, PNG is functionally equivalent to GIF except:

• PNG-8 can not animate.
  
• PNG-24 can not produce transparent pixels.
  
• Some browsers still don't fully support all the features of PNG files. (e.g.: Older versions of Microsoft Internet Exploder don't properly display transparency of PNG-8 images.)

But, on the UP side, both versions of PNG are capable of producing images that are as good as or better than their more well-known cousins while producing smaller file sizes.

 

Furthermore, the PNG algorithm is open source/freeware. People who want to include it in their programs can do so without being forced to pay a lot of money to some fat assed corporate slug.

 

90% of the people in the internet world can't tell the difference between comparably compressed GIF and PNG images but the file size benefits alone make it worth considering.

 

I fully encourage the use of PNG over GIF.

[Guest]

I UNDERSTAND THE BIT AT THE BOTTOM IN LATIN WORKER. BUT THE REST...IS IT KLINGON? LOL!

[Worker 11811]

You are only the second person who understood that line!

 

Basically, I'm saying two things:

1. 
   
2. GIF and PNG are equivalent but for some small details.
   
3. BMP are a waste of space.

The rest is a rant on unchecked corporate encroachment into the private sector.