[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Graphics Conversion (was Re: NetScape 5)



Could you post information about the GIF graphics you are converting, Mitch? 
It would be great if those were on a website somewhere.

I want to see the file size, and the width and heigth of them.

77 conversions in 6 min 20sec is fast!  That's 380 seconds total, 4.5 seconds
for each GIF conversion!


In article <6JAN199905083920@vax2.concordia.ca>,
  spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
> In article spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) writes...
>
> >In article Joe Kohn <joko@crl.com> writes...
> >
> >>Please...everyone....download those GIF graphics and use _your_ favorite
> >>graphics conversion program to convert them to standard 16 color 320 x 200
> >>Super Hi Res graphics. And, time how long it takes. Then post your times.
> >
> >    Well, I decided to give it a try and came up with some rather
> >surprising results. Perhaps it has to do with the fact almost all the
> >images are already in 320x200 resolution with 16 or less colors, or
> >because I set an option incorrectly, but Convert 3200 came dead last
> >in this race. I should probably try it again with larger GIF images
> >that have a color depth of 256 colors, the results might be very
> >different.
> >
> >Using my IIgs running at 15 MHz, with all programs reading and
> >writing to my SCSI hardrive connected through a 1 MB RamFAST SCSI,
> >I came up with the following results:
> >
> >LordHighGiffer.............0 min, 50 sec
> >SHRView 3.6................2 min, 30 sec
> >Convert 3200..............30 min, 50 sec
>                            ^^^^^^
>     I thought something was strange, so I redid the test, following
> the exactly what Joe did this time (that is, leaving options set to
> their defaults) and came up with much more respectable results this
> second time around.
>
>     Converting all 77 GIF images took: 6 minutes, 20 seconds.
>
>     That's quite an improvement over my initial test. :) Apparently
> converting the images into _3200 color_ format is *faster* than if
> you choose 16 color format. Why, I'm not sure, but hopefully that
> new result dispells any doubt I may have cast concerning Convert
> 3200.
>
> Mitchell Spector
> spec@vax2.concordia.ca
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own