My 1 2 3 Test info

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.

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.

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.

"Clem" ha scritto nel messaggio
. 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank all
ciao
Fabio

JRW..
it is bizarre isn't it?
This is supposed to be about sharing airplane pix. Yet it turns into little
more then a study in watching grown people act like children. Especially
when we don't know each others real identity, and can change our identity at
will. Seems borderline psychotic to me.

J-3's pics are interesting.. but one has to wonder why anyone would want to
spend as much time as he does posting pix that are already available, easier
to view elsewhere, and could be resized and posted much faster with less
bandwidth then the method he uses....

It really seems that we have quite a few 'troubled' individuals here. The
unfortunate downside of all this is that over the past year or so a number
of truly gifted photographers have pretty much given up on posting their
stuff here. I don't blame them as their efforts get blown out of the water
by these floods that push their stuff off of the servers in short order...
sigh.

So start the attacks folks.. But remember.. your attacking an anonymous
name.... tomorrow I could be Tim in Toledo.. that's how nuts you've all
become...

gotta go fly...

Glen in Orlando

"Glen in Orlando" wrote in message
ng.com...
JRW..

gotta go fly...

Glen in Orlando



I like the idea about getting laid, hmmm I might give that a try.


I'm sure my wife will take your word for it.



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

"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.

Hi Group

I have been quietly lurking and enjoying the pictures for several weeks now.

I read the test results from Clem and thought I would offer some information
I got along with the files.

Test #1 - 11 parts - actual size after download 3857,220 bytes- transmitted
size 85716
Test #2 - 11 parts - actual size after download 3,857,130 bytes -
transmitted size 85714
Test#3 - 10 parts - actual size after download 4,015,050 bytes -
transmitted size 30885

Yes the transmitted file is smaller which saves bandwidth but larger when
occupying space on the hard drive. So it is a double edged sword

JRW wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
@news.wanadoo.nl:

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?

"TeeRee" wrote in
:

Hi Group

I have been quietly lurking and enjoying the pictures for several weeks
now.

I read the test results from Clem and thought I would offer some
information I got along with the files.

Test #1 - 11 parts - actual size after download 3857,220 bytes-
transmitted size 85716
Test #2 - 11 parts - actual size after download 3,857,130 bytes -
transmitted size 85714
Test#3 - 10 parts - actual size after download 4,015,050 bytes -
transmitted size 30885

Yes the transmitted file is smaller which saves bandwidth but larger
when occupying space on the hard drive. So it is a double edged sword

Thanks for the feedback. I saw that same results. The actual file size
increased by a surprising amount. I suppose the only logical and efficient
method is to reduce a file size before it's uploaded.

Now the question is, is any software available that performs batch
conversions?