| |
tlr
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 1790 |
Larger than 30Kb screenshots? (C64 DTV, etc...)
I know this has been up before, and maybe it is in the outskirts of csdb.
I want to add a couple of screenshots for C64 DTV stuff.
The DTV uses 256 colors + there is no emulator, so all shots are screen grabbed or photographed.
Getting these shots down to a 30Kb png will definately make them look crap!
How about raising the limit to 80Kb or so, and maybe allow JPG's?
This could be restricted to certain categories so we still force all ordinary c64-shots to be good quality PNGs/GIFs.
|
|
... 10 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
jpg's should be definitly supported, and I would rise the limit to atleast 64kb. a 64kb jpg can show pretty much any screen shot. |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
If JPEGs are allowed, there's no need to raise the limit - you can easily fit a 320x200 JPEG in under 30 kB with good quality.
|
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
With jpg I'd worry abit about crappy screenshots being entered. Too few people actually care about compression-rates and use that bloated bitch PS to "save for web" or god knows and on gfx with large 1-color areas (as in most c64-gfx) with stringent borders between colors that can become quite ugly.
PNG is indeed quite powerful and for most c64-stuff even GIF compresses sufficiently. Well, that what I think. |
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1679 |
I must admit that I don't like the idea of jpg's either. Perhaps there are situations where a jpg will be nice, but it will open up for the possibility for people to upload jpg's of regular c64-screenshots which will then look like crap. So no to jpg's.
However, about the 30kb limit. This was set in the early days when we was hosted for free, so we wouldn't use to much space. Now with our own server, the space issue is no longer so great, so the limit could easily be set up. I have heard some different limits - could we find a limit we could all agree on? (and oo is not an option. :) ) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
64k or sth like that should be enough (320x200 in 256 colors uncompressed would fit in that). |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
This is a 384x271x8bit image of uncorrelated noise.
105357 Bytes as PNG. I think no image can ever beat this.
Just to give an idea :)
http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/DE/Ins/Per/Wendt/c64/max.png
So I've set a maximum :)
The same image as 320x200x8bit is
65147 Bytes large:
http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/DE/Ins/Per/Wendt/c64/max320.png
So I think Oswalds 64 KB are a quite realistic idea.
Note that this is for DTV only!
The same image reduced to 16 cols ist only
31854 bytes large:
http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/DE/Ins/Per/Wendt/c64/max320x4.png
So for all non-interlace-modes on C64 even the 30 KB seem pretty valid.
I dont care about averaged interlace-shots :)
BUt to give them credit I vote for 64 KB (if this is a vote) |
| |
tlr
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 1790 |
I vote for the uncorrelated noise. ~100Kb
Don't make me do an uncorrelated DTV demo. ;)
|
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
How about trusting posters to upload decent screenshots? If they don't remove it - anyone can do it. Most uploaders have enough braincells to pick png...
|
| |
Nafcom
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 588 |
Quote: How about trusting posters to upload decent screenshots? If they don't remove it - anyone can do it. Most uploaders have enough braincells to pick png...
I agree |
| Previous - 1 | 2 - Next |
