file size (was: ascii art for email ...)

This thread is diverging in all directions, I am breaking it up into three
topics, this article is on the third topic.

1) html and javascript
2) viewable on all computers
3) file size

I did make systematic file size comparisons about six or seven months ago.
You can very quickly tell how large the exact file sizes of my cartoons
are. For example, the file size of a panel of 66 x 30 is exactly 1980 bytes
(pure ascii). Converted into gif, the file size will be 2.8 kb, just 40%
larger than the pure ascii file (this assumes that you know how to keep gif
file sizes small.) 

Assuming that you download at 1 kb/s, there is only a small difference in
download time, 2 seconds vs. 2.8 seconds.

Moreover, gif renders a lot cleaner than html/ascii on the web. Those and
a few other factors made me convert ascii/html to gif, although the pics
remain the same. Ha, there will be flames!

Check the infamous DejaNews archives for further details, but the above is
the essence. You will find that the file size argument is pretty weak.

>did you take that computer science course yet?
Dear Veronicastein, in case you have not noticed yet, I have been in ascii
... continuing the journey ... ha, more flames!

   ,,
  ( ">
 ,(->)->  http://members.aol.com/petecasso
(  ^^
 Frogstein and Birdstein (ascii art comic strips)
  Jump, Frogstein, Jump! (animated cartoons)
   Style, Birdstein, Style! (Text Art Plus)
    Fly, Birdstein, Fly! (Animated Text Art Plus)

Hilton asked for a dog, you drew the pic below, saying that it looks
"steinish". The point is that you and others and myself, of course, like
the extreme simplicity and unique style of the 'steins. So, there is
nothing wrong with the extreme simplicity and the unique style of the
'steins, isn't it?

    _
  c" U__/
    )  (
    "  "  (CR)

Now, going beyond the ascii 'steins, I created Text Art Plus and its
animated version, in very much the same way that others on this newsgroup
have gone beyond ascii and ventured into html and javascript. By the same
token, it should be perfectly legitimate to discuss all ascii enhancements
on this newsgroup or we should declare them all illegitimate. 

Since others have been freely discussing ascii enhancements on this
newsgroup, I did that too, only that I got flamed in doing so. I am not
purposely misunderstanding issues, I am merely disagreeing with the
arbitrary (and contradictory) judgement calls that were tossed up in the
flames. But no worry, the Grandpa Devilstein in me will throw things back, ha!

On the file format issue, let me draw this chart (it is supposed to
resemble something like a Gaussian bell curve, ha!) showing usage of art
file formats on the Internet over the different types of art file formats.
The bell curve is sliding with time from left to right.

Usage of art file formats on the Internet
^
|
|                       1990's      2000's
|
|                       o    o
|                   o           o      bell curve
|                 o               o      slides with time
|               o                   o      ---------------->
|             o                       o
|           o                            o
|         o                                 o
|       o                                      o
|    o                              png?          o
| o                                 quicktime?        o
|         ascii         gif         shockwave?
|-----------------------------------------------------------
            art file formats on the Internet

What the chart is saying, is that gif is king of the hill in the 1990's,
there will be other kings of the hill in the next decade, etc. I am
therefore using/playing with these file formats and of course, I am taking
advantage of what these file formats have to offer. What's the point of me
using/playing with these file formats without introducing indigenous
enhancements? However, I do all that without losing the extreme simplicity
and unique style of the 'steins, and this article has come full circle, see
above.

   ,,
  ( ">
 ,(->)->  http://members.aol.com/petecasso
(  ^^
 Frogstein and Birdstein (ascii art comic strips)
  Jump, Frogstein, Jump! (animated cartoons)
   Style, Birdstein, Style! (Text Art Plus)
    Fly, Birdstein, Fly! (Animated Text Art Plus)

A beautiful picture...but it is not a valid chart.

#1) Where are the values?  You have both "file formats" and dates on the Y axis, and no values on the X axis...now I will assume the X-axis is either total bits or number of images or "pages", but that still leaves us with the dual values on the y-axis.  Also, if X is bits, your theory does not apply to the argument...for, IMHO, aside from the most important: total 'translatability', the practical reason for doing ascii-art is that the file-size is smaller than a gif or jpeg for the same sized picture.

#2) I'd like to see the data that you used to form this chart.  Where can I find it?  Was there a survey, or did somebody find a way collect this type of data from all the servers on the internet?

But, like I said, it is a pretty picture.

PeteCasso wrote:
> 
> Usage of art file formats on the Internet
> ^
> |
> |                       1990's      2000's
> |
> |                       o    o
> |                   o           o      bell curve
> |                 o               o      slides with time
> |               o                   o      ---------------->
> |             o                       o
> |           o                            o
> |         o                                 o
> |       o                                      o
> |    o                              png?          o
> | o                                 quicktime?        o
> |         ascii         gif         shockwave?
> |-----------------------------------------------------------
>             art file formats on the Internet
> 
> What the chart is saying, is that gif is king of the hill in the 1990's,
> there will be other kings of the hill in the next decade, etc.
\/\/\/chainsaw buzz/\/\/\/\/

______________________________________________________________________________________________
    o
  _ |\  __
 /t\|r\/ee\
o \t|rr|e/ o
   ------           Tom R. Earlywine
    @  @
     c
    \__/ 
______________________________________________________________________________________________
remove ".NOSPAM" from my address to reply!
______________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm getting tired of the word Papparazzi(sp?) being thrown about.  These people are sick, 
moneygrabbing jerks with cameras that can't get an honest job and are giving a bad name to
journalism, which, un-fortunately, is part of the phrase "bad journalism."

Ooops, sorry 'bout linewrap folks.

Tom R. Earlywine wrote:
> 
> A beautiful picture...but it is not a valid chart.
> 
> #1) Where are the values?  You have both "file formats" and dates on the Y axis, and no values
 on the X axis...now I will assume the X-axis is either total bits or number of images or "pages",
 but that still leaves us with the dual values on the y-axis.  Also, if X is bits, your theory does
 not apply to the argument...for, IMHO, aside from the most important: total 'translatability', the
 practical reason for doing ascii-art is that the file-size is smaller than a gif or jpeg for the
 same sized picture.
> 
> #2) I'd like to see the data that you used to form this chart.  Where can I find it?  Was there
 a survey, or did somebody find a way collect this type of data from all the servers on the
 internet?
> 
> But, like I said, it is a pretty picture.
> 

______________________________________________________________________________________________
    o
  _ |\  __
 /t\|r\/ee\
o \t|rr|e/ o
   ------           Tom R. Earlywine
    @  @
     c
    \__/ 
______________________________________________________________________________________________
remove ".NOSPAM" from my address to reply!
______________________________________________________________________________________________
I have to wonder if the reason why the media keeps throwing the word "Papparazzi"(sp?) about
is that they are trying to separate themselves from these sick-o's...even though their
constant use of this tragedy to sell advertising space is exactly the same thing as what
caused it in the first place.  STOP THE MADNESS-DON'T BUY THAT CRAP AND GET OVER YOUR FAME
ADDICTION!