On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 0:5:59 +0800, J. J. Young wrote:
> The image of a prism attached by Glenn recently was larger as ZBM than
> a GIF with a reduction of color-depth appropriate to the image.
But you would need to have some kind of graphic dry-cleaning fluid or
bleach handy to launder the image. ;-)
> Clarence wouldn't push for ZBMs of photographic images, but such images
> are _much_ smaller as JPEG with carefully selected compression,
Right. I wouldn't push for ZBMs of photographic images.
> and some
> twit is bound to offer them as ZBM.
Right. Some twit surely will. ;-(
But as you know, aside from being bigger than JPGs for images of high
detail, they do offer the ultimate in resolution and a universality of
color depth while still being smaller than a fully blown .BMP.
Which some twit will surely put on the web too. (like me). ;-)
> I thought the idea was ZBMs would auto-explode and display.
Well, yeah. But the main idea (aside from generally replacing .gifs) is
to allow someone without a major graphic workshop to send a reasonably
small snapshot of what's on the screen to whomever they talk to the most.
If that's us talking to us, then they could explode if you have a fuse at
hand. <G>
> If you don't mind, I'll continue surfing for most of the time with images
> off, and avoid the potential for ZBM boobytraps :-)
Absolutely, certainly, the best idea. If one gets curious from time to
time, simply take a peek. I think Lynx would be ideal for that kind of
use. What say you ?
> Off to burn a cow.
My commiserations. :(
- Clarence Verge
- Back to using Arachne V1.62 ....
