CompuServe Thread

#TOTAL CONFUSION

26 messages in this thread
#528From: DAVID FEASTERSep 20, 1990 2:22 PM
PLEASE RECOMEND A GIF FILE TO DOWNLOAD THAT WILL ENABLE ME TO UTILIZE ALL OF THE PICTURE-GRAPH FORMATS THAT ARE IN THE LIBRARY. WHEN DOWNLOADING WHAT DO I HAVE THE FILE DOWNLOADED TO? DO I NEED A DE-COMPRESSION PROGRAM IN ORDER TO USE THE PROGRAM? AND WILL THESE PROGRAMS HAVE ICONS TO OPERATE OR MUST THEY BE RUN FROM THE CLI? I WOULD APPRICIATE ANY HELP, PLEAS CONDESENDING AS POSSIBLE, FOR I AM LIMITED IN MY SKILLS AS A COMPUTER PROGRAMMER. IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT THIS STUFF. I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE EVERYTHING! THANX FOR UNDERSTANDING SINCERELY, DAVID FEASTER
#542From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 20, 1990 7:08 PM
David, It is going to take more than one message (from you and also from me) to get all of this worked out, but we can do it. First of all – almost everything on this and all other boards is archived using either ARC, LHARC, or ZOO. This is done for several reasons. Mainly, it keeps all the files that belong together in a single file for downloading, and also, it compacts the data so you have a much shorter download time. It does mean, though, that you have to unpack the data once you have it downloaded. For that, you need to go to Library 5 of AmigaUser and download: ARC.EXE to unpack files whose names end with .ARC ZOO.EXE to unpack files whose names end with .ZOO LHARC.EXE to unpack files whose names end with .LZH ARCHLP.EXE to teach you how to use the other three. Second, you will need a viewer that can display most of the graphics. The two I like best are SuperVIEW and MOSTRA. Both of those are in Library 14 of AMigaArts. I would suggest that you format a clean disk to hold your downloads, and name it DL. Then, when the CIS computer asks: Name for your computer: you can type DL:FILENAME.EXT whatever the filename and extension might be, such as SVIEW.LZH Most of the things will not have icons, but once you have learned to download and to unarc, I'll tell you how to do that, too. Let me know if you need more help. Betty
#608From: Leslie T. BartiromoSep 22, 1990 11:05 AM
Betty, perhaps you can clear something up for me. Why aren't GIF files compressed on CI$ or any other BBS? Is it due to differences in computer decompression programs? GIF files are usually pretty big and timely <sp> to download.
#610From: Bill EastburnSep 22, 1990 11:53 AM
GIF is a compressed format. Additonal archiving over the GIF file will, in most cases, increase the size of the file. Bill, K3OZM
#612From: <David L. Gold>Sep 22, 1990 1:23 PM
I've notice that if I convert a GIF to Amiga-HAM, the file size is dereased by a great deal! And if I GIF that file, the end result is almost *half* that of the original GIF file, with no loss in quality. Why is that? <Dave>
#619From: Thomas HoladaySep 22, 1990 3:50 PM
GIF has enough information in it to recreate a one-byte-per-pixel image, which is 8 bits per pixel. When you convert it to HAM, you convert it to a six-bits-per-pixel format. That is a 25% reduction right there in gross data terms. Compression of the HAM image results in a smaller GIF. That's my guess. THol() { cout << "Sir, I exist." ;}
#620From: Bill EastburnSep 22, 1990 3:55 PM
When you convert a GIF to HAM, you generally cut the resolution of the original image by about half. (Based on a typical 640×480 GIF created on a clone, you would convert to 320×400 or 320×200 to get into HAM mode.) The lower resolution of the HAM file allows for a smaller file size. Converting the HAM file to GIF impresses compression on the HAM file – not the original image. You would realize approximately the same file compression by using the archive utility ARC, which uses the same method of compression. (As does the utility LHARC, though the compression routine was refined in LHARC.) Bill, K3OZM
#691From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPSep 23, 1990 4:30 PM
Actually, GIF's compression is typically better than ARC, and depending on the image, often better than LHARC as well. That is because it doesn't start at the same higher bits per compression code, and is somewhat more oriented to a graphics display than general file compression. –>Steve Bennett
#704From: Bill EastburnSep 23, 1990 6:22 PM
True enough, but those utilities do provide a valid comparison, and they use essentially the same compression routines. Of course, the compression on a HAM image isn't really all that significant in any of those methods, while compression of a RGB bitmap can be very significant. All of which really has nothing to do with the original question. 🙂 Ya cuts the resolution of a picture in half, and ya gets a smaller file, bottom line. Bill, K3OZM
#708From: Leslie T. BartiromoSep 23, 1990 8:11 PM
Thanks, Bill. I wasn't aware that GIF's were already compressed.
#630From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 22, 1990 8:36 PM
Leslie, I'm no expert on GIF formats, but it is my understanding that they are already compressed. That is, the GIF format is compressed as a part of the format itself. To then compress them with yet another program could even result in making them bigger. Almost any file that has to contain a bitmap showing lots of colors is going to be big! Betty
#634From: Bill EastburnSep 22, 1990 9:09 PM
It depends on how "busy" the image is, Betty, but I have run GifSCAN on a number or images and find the GIF file is compressed around 30-50%, typically, over the bitmap. I have one on one of my disks right now that is 159k in GIF format, but 774k as a RGB bitmap…….. too big for me to process in TAD <sigh>. That is a rather unusual amount of compression, but the image is mostly solid colors on a solid background. On the other side, I'd expect something like the CF thing (the one that looked like a full color clambake) Perry did to demonstrate one of his scanlab products to compress closer to 20%, if that. I have seen some GIF files recompressed on some local BBS, and the archived file has always been larger than the GIF file. I have never had the interest to really look into the subject to see what degree of expansion such a "recompression" would cause. Bill, K3OZM
#665From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 23, 1990 9:50 AM
To tell the truth, Bill – I never tried it either. I just quoted what I've read so many times here. Betty
#709From: Leslie T. BartiromoSep 23, 1990 8:11 PM
I didn't know that GIF's were compressed already. I had always thought that it was safest to compress files in someway before downloading for the Amiga due to Amy needing the exact file size. I thought that downloading (and uploading) with some protocols pad the file making them useless to the Amiga.
#721From: Bill EastburnSep 23, 1990 10:24 PM
Some protocols, like Xmodem, do pad transmissions to meet protocol standards. Almost every Amiga term program in use today is equipped to strip that padding automatically, however. Quite a few protocols don't use any padding nowdays anyway. In any event, padding would be more likely to affect the decompression utility than a raw file. Bill, K3OZM
#732From: Jim MaurerSep 24, 1990 12:34 AM
Having downloaded files come out with the exact same size is a lot more of a problem with executable programs than with data files. Jim Maurer
#738From: Leslie T. BartiromoSep 24, 1990 8:15 AM
That would seem to make sense. I guess data files could stand to have an extra few bytes without many problems. I am saving a lot of my GIF files in the hope that Amiga resolution will increase somewhere down the road.
#740From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 24, 1990 8:34 AM
Leslie, it is XModem that pads the files. GIF files are compressed, though. Betty
#626From: Mark BonderSep 22, 1990 6:23 PM
Betty, You've mentioned something about working with icons. I have a question along those lines. I have been downloading (long) text files from a school account using the Kermit protocol, under the assumption that it would be faster than capturing text. Previously, when I've used capture, my comm program would give the file an icon which, when double-clicked, would automatically run 'more' and would view the file. This is not the case, however, when I use the Kermit protocol. It just gives it an icon that somewhat resembles a terminal, and it doesn't call up 'more'. The question is, then, how can I change the icon so that it will get 'more' to read the file? Thanks for any help.. – Mark
#643From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 22, 1990 9:53 PM
Mark, click once on that icon, and then move to the Project menu and select "Info". On the Infor screen that then comes up, first look and see if you have a project icon. If so, then look down at the line that says Default tool. Change that to the reader you want, paying close attention to the path. For example, if 'more' is on the c directory of your workbench, etc., that tool need only say MORE if it is in a c: directory of the disk on which the text file is, the tool would say :C/MORE If it is in a c: directory on something other than your boot disk, you might have to say Diskname:c/more You get the idea, I'm sure. After you fix it, click on SAVE. After that, it ought to work. Betty
#692From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPSep 23, 1990 4:38 PM
Shouldn't that have been "C:MORE" and not ":C/MORE"? I always use the former, because that way it will always get MORE off the correct disk even if the icon you are clicking upon is on a different disk. Otherwise I need to have copies of MORE scattered about. (In fact, that's one minor annoyance about certain uploads… Icons should always refer either to a specific disk name [ie. "FRED:RUNME"] or a common defined system name [ie. "C:MORE"], or should avoid the volume entirely and reference something solely from the current directory. [ie. "fred/runme"] One should avoid references based on the root directory of the current disk [ie. ":fred/runme"] because there is NO guarentee that the user will decide to unarchive the files at the root or in a specific subdirectory. I know *I* never do…) –>Steve Bennett
#705From: Bill EastburnSep 23, 1990 6:22 PM
That seems to be a very common problem. It is even more frustrating when the author specifies "Less", or "DH21:Fred'sSuperThingies/Fred'sSuperFileReader" as the default tool. I think it should be incumbent on the uploader to insure the default tool is either included, with approriate pathing in the icon, or only tools available on the standard WB be specified. (Must think I'm in Hyde Park… climbing off soapbox.) Bill, K3OZM
#711From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPSep 23, 1990 8:20 PM
Yeah, I've been frustrated by that one too, and agree that the uploader should stick to the basic tools included with the Amiga for things like that, or supply what's needed. On the other hand, that could get awfully annoying to the downloader who has just downloaded Yet Another Archive containing "MuchMore" or something like that… You lose either way. <sigh> –>Steve Bennett
#723From: Bill EastburnSep 23, 1990 10:25 PM
One other thing that really gets to me is the assumption by many that EVERYONE uses ARP, or at least has ARP.LIBRARY on their sys:. I have some disks that have it, and others that don't. Lots of folks don't have it at all. I think uploaders should inform the user that ARP is required in the file description. It would save a lot of time in downloading a utility, then deleting it. 🙂 Bill, K3OZM
#741From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 24, 1990 8:34 AM
Even worse – some of them insist on a particular version of ARP. I have the latest version available here, and quite a few programs complain that I have the wrong version, and refuse to run because of it. Betty
#739From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 24, 1990 8:34 AM
The disks I make for my club always have a c: directory, and the icon has to say :c/more – indicating to look in the c directory of THIS disk for more. I believe that c:More looks in the C directory under which the machine was booted. Perhaps I'm wrong – just fixed something that worked for me. Betty