I motion...

[onesojourner]

I motion that we ban all .bmp files from being posted to this site. what a waste of bandwidth.

 

[SuperJETT]

I am all for that.

 

[EvanB85]

but then what will I use Microsoft Paint for? It's probably the best picture editing software that I know of.

 

[Rickster]

I motion that we ban all .bmp files from being posted to this site. what a waste of bandwidth.

I second that...

:Banane37:

 

[Big Kahuna]

dont know enough about it.......................
what is BMP?

 

[Snackem]

dont know enough about it.......................
what is BMP?

and why can't I view them in a ff window?

 

[Moondance]

but then what will I use Microsoft Paint for? It's probably the best picture editing software that I know of.

you can still save it as a jpg

 

[EvanB85]

you can still save it as a jpg

I know... I was just being my usual sarcastic self. Bitmaps are so 1995. :smile:

 

[Moondance]

I know... I was just being my usual sarcastic self. Bitmaps are so 1995. :smile:

Sorry...carry on:beerchug:

 

[onesojourner]

all in favor...

 

[vitaly]

dont know enough about it.......................
what is BMP?

Here: BMP-1 and BMP-2.

A friggin blast to drive, especially the second one.

 

[Matt_E]

but then what will I use Microsoft Paint for? It's probably the best picture editing software that I know of.

Save it as jpg, fool.

 

[Matt_E]

Here: BMP-1 and BMP-2.

A friggin blast to drive, especially the second one.

:haha:

That's always the first thing I think of, too.

 

[Matt_E]

and why can't I view them in a ff window?

Because you touch yourself at night.

 

[SuperJETT]

.bmp's are gone.

 

[Snackem]

Because you touch yourself at night.

No you idiot, that's why I wear glasses.

 

[astral]

Would be cool to diether the images like photoshop does with the (save for web function).There may be a script or something to do this to save space and bandwidth..
A 800/600 image(2.64 meg's) dietherd down is (407 K) at 800/600 with little to no loss in quality.

 

[Kennay]

unless we are having bandwidth problems right now, I don't see the point in degrading picture quality. If you want my honest opinion, I would let the max jpeg size go to 1000x1000 if you chose to degrade the quality (I'd vote for that.) Half the time with 800x600, you can't tell what in the hell you are looking at. It either has to be zoomed too far in to get the details, or either it's too far back, and there are no details.

 

[astral]

one pic is 800/600 -400kb one is 1280/1024 4megs.
The only diff is diethering.If you use the right codec you cant tell the diff until you zoom down to the pixal level..Then the site takes it down further..
I do agree, unless there is server load or other issue leave it alone..I am a fan of high res photo's

 

[SuperJETT]

unless we are having bandwidth problems right now, I don't see the point in degrading picture quality. If you want my honest opinion, I would let the max jpeg size go to 1000x1000 if you chose to degrade the quality (I'd vote for that.) Half the time with 800x600, you can't tell what in the hell you are looking at. It either has to be zoomed too far in to get the details, or either it's too far back, and there are no details.

Do you really know what you're talking about? Our current limits are 800x800, bumping it up 25% won't give much more detail. If you need more, use imageshack/flickr/etc and link it. As far as degrading picture quality, the server doesn't degrade it, it just resizes down at 75% quality.