My 1 2 3 Test info

R W Hughes wrote in news:TMKdne-
nk:

Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
appreciate hearing about it.

Graphic Workshop Pro will resize, convert format, etc on large groups of
files and is free http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html


If I remember correctly, Alchemy has been around with different software for
years. Thanks for the info.

Clem wrote:
®i©ardo wrote in
:

Clem wrote:
"Glen in Orlando" wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
:

Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?

Glen in Orlando.


begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg

Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
`
end


I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a few
files it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more files
from an airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize each
picture.

There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take pictures
and share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not going to
reduce each one seperately unless it's only a few shots.

I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality. If
you take a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can enlarge it
again with little loss to the quality of it. The question is, which
method of reduction leads to the least amount of quality loss.

Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques
seemed like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to know
how everyone is receiving the files off their servers.

I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures
posted. I see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the
original posts and I'm tired of doing a parent search half the time.

Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
appreciate hearing about it.
Try this:

http://www.gpsoft.com.au/

OK, it comes at a cost, but the "Tools" "Convert Images" facility is
superb - once you work out what to do.

I understand that Irfanview, free of charge, has a similar facility.


This makes two I never heard of before. 30 day evaluation is a nice selling
point. I think the price is $65.


You could pick up an earlier version at much lower cost from:

http://almomiz.com/software/pc/other...opus_v8.0.html

Its main purpose is as a Windows Explorer replacement and I've found it
to be an incredibly versatile program - I'd be lost without it.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Clem wrote in
.136:

Peter Hucker wrote in
:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:29:35 +0200, "Fabio" wrote:


"Clem" ha scritto nel messaggio
96.97.136...
Using Xnews, I............................. I'm not trying to
start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic
upload.

The fact is that actually I got only 7 parts out of 11 . No matter if
yenc or any different program is used, when multipart.. pictures are
posted very often I cant open them.There are always parts missing .
As a result I get only very puzzling jigsaw useless images. I must
then find different usenet links to recover -with some difficulty -
what I lost on my news server. So please, please, please send simple
.jpg images!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed - no point in splitting unless it's very very big. And I can
post 10MB in one article without splitting.

FYI, it was my server that split the F4 picture into 10-11 diffirent
files. I downloaded it from this group as 1 normal file a few years
ago. You would think the same file could be uploaded again without any
problems. What appeared to be a deliberate multipart posting by me was
actually not.

The only way I can prevent that from happening again is to first learn
what my provider considers "simple" in size and reduce files to that
size.

Considering the fact that newer cameras have higher resolutions which
translate to larger file sizes, it's not until you upload a file, that
you will know if it becomes a multipart or not if your unfamiliar with
your servers limitations. Come Monday morning my provider is getting a
call. I'll share the info after I get it.

As I understand it, the splitting occurs as you post, and is done by your
posting software depending on the settings it has been - er, set to.

Servers can have limits on the size of an individual post, or part of a
larger post, and this can vary between servers. What one server will
accept may get rejected by another server along the way through the
Netiverse.

Bob ^,,^

®i©ardo wrote in
:

Clem wrote:
®i©ardo wrote in
:

Clem wrote:
"Glen in Orlando" wrote in
news:48afebf6$0$28433 :

Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is
right here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?

Glen in Orlando.


begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg

Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
`
end


I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a
few files it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more
files from an airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize
each picture.

There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take
pictures and share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not
going to reduce each one seperately unless it's only a few shots.

I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality.
If you take a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can
enlarge it again with little loss to the quality of it. The
question is, which method of reduction leads to the least amount of
quality loss.

Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques
seemed like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to
know how everyone is receiving the files off their servers.

I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures
posted. I see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the
original posts and I'm tired of doing a parent search half the
time.

Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone
could recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time,
I would appreciate hearing about it.
Try this:

http://www.gpsoft.com.au/

OK, it comes at a cost, but the "Tools" "Convert Images" facility is
superb - once you work out what to do.

I understand that Irfanview, free of charge, has a similar facility.


This makes two I never heard of before. 30 day evaluation is a nice
selling point. I think the price is $65.


You could pick up an earlier version at much lower cost from:

http://almomiz.com/software/pc/other...opus_v8.0.html

Its main purpose is as a Windows Explorer replacement and I've found
it to be an incredibly versatile program - I'd be lost without it.

I've used Directory Opus since version 3 or 4 on my old Commodore Amiga
500 in the late '80s - it's a winner!

Bob ^,,^

alt.binaries.test

all you have to do is subscribe to it...simple. ))

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:23:35 -0500, Clem
wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote in
:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:35:20 -0500, Clem
wrote:

JRW wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
:

WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.

I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's fast,easy
to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast Stone is free
which is even better.

I agree, what is the point to such large files?

Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll always
have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you have
done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.

JRW

Glen in Orlando wrote:
Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?

Glen in Orlando.





Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.

What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual file
size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K max. Did
anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything larger than an
8K file?

No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to provide
better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a little or ask
questions how can you impove on anything?

The units are all mixed up in this thread. 8000 lines perhaps, but 8K
means 8KB, which is minute.

The max for some servers is 1MB per post. For mine it's 10MB. Try it
and see.

I noticed on Xnews software the file size is listed as total lines in a
picture rather than by traditional sizing. I wasn't sure if they were one in
the same.

Your the first to point out an interesting oddity of different servers.

My server is breaking a file at 8K and yours is much higher. This also might
be a reason why I don't see as many posts as others do. I know servers have a
switch to refuse messages considered to large. Presumably, it's a way to
eliminate or reduce spam. I have a lot of questions for my provider in the
morning!

I've never known a server break a file. The break setting is in your
news program. If you post something bigger than the server limit it
will reject it.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:


Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?


The point is you've removed half the data in the file.

Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!

If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

How much deeper would the ocean be if sponges didn't grow in it?

They were on topic pictures.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:07:11 -0500, "Terry M" wrote:

There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you don't
flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a smart
a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
something good.


"Clem" wrote in message
.97.136...
Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
almost
4KB.

The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K and
one at 5714.

The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
the
same results.

The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
only
10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
range.

Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is figured
seeing as this test indicates the opposit.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:12:04 -0500, Clem
wrote:

"Terry M" wrote in news:
:

There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you
don't
flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a
smart
a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
something good.


"Clem" wrote in message
. 97.136...
Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
almost
4KB.

The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K
and
one at 5714.

The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
the
same results.

The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
only
10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
range.

Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is
figured
seeing as this test indicates the opposit.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.




It appears the problem is split between the actual file size and the
different servers that feed this group. Using a test server would be
pointless because I could not get the feed back I needed when I call my
provider Monday. If you read some of my other replies you will get a better
idea of why I'm doing this.

BTW, I considered your idea and looked for a reliable test server. Do you
have any idea how many are out there!

Group, not server.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:



Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?


The point is you've removed half the data in the file.


Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!


If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.

lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
such high quality?