The return of my Original Artworks section has now arrived!!

[Z!re]

That was sort of my point you know...

Why disable rightclick when people can still just do a "View Source" and get all the info they would ever want.

[MystikShadows]

or make available offline....and pics get download in a very efficient way lol

[Adigun A. Polack]

To AetherFox and Z!re:

I gotta confess something in this post, so listen up. !

In the past, ever since the birth of the AAP Official Homepage, yes, I have originally created webpages using MS Word ( ), but then I had to change some HTML code. And AetherFox, I gotta be real dead-on honest with you here: now that you told me that using Word is *very* quite tedious and then some for the structure of HTML pages — and I did not even know that up to now — I will tell you what I’m gonna do:

• 1 • I am gonna re-arrange and re-work on the HTML pages on my entire artworks section to no longer involve any “MS-Word”-based specifics at all.
  
  2 • Next, I can optimize (and even reduce the size of, too!) the artworks viewed on my page to get rid of having to wait longer and longer for that pic to come up.
  
  3 • I can even ALLOW the downloads of my arts to be placed on my site, too (and *not* just for a limited time only either!).
  

AetherFox, as you just pointed out to me, even my kind of security on the artworks section has some gaping holes, even when I disabled right-clicking, too. And Z!re, I must dare admit that you are no doubt correct about the difference between the file size of both the .GIFs and the .PNGs. I am gonna take this into consideration on the changes that I am gonna do, so you hang on and see!

Going back to you, AetherFox: as for Bryce, yes, I have heard of that product, and yes, it also is some TRULY awesome stuff for making 3D graphics and all that jazz. I cannot afford it at this time, however, as it is some very, very expensive software there. If you can, could you please show me some freeware-only alternatives for Bryce so that I can learn to do my computer artworks better? Thanks a lot, as any help on this is no less than appreciated, man!! =b !

AetherFox and Z!re, thank you both so much really honestly with all of my heart ( :king: ) for your concern, as you *do* want me to make better webpages and stuff, and I can understand that. See you two fine folks later.



GETTING READY TO CHANGE SOME THINGS TODAY,


Adigun Azikiwe Polack
One of the Founders of “Aura Flow” ::: Continuing Developer of “Frantic Journey”
Current Developer of “Star Angelic Slugger” ::: Webmaster of the “AAP Official Projects Squad”
Original Creator of the “The New FreeBASIC 8-Bit Palette Machine”

[moochthemonkey]

Wow, those were awesome. I wish I could draw.

Where there is a will,. there is a way.. :wink: .. And besides, all a drawing is a bunch of lines created via pincel or Mouse (Comp).. So as practice: Start, draw striate lines, then curves, circles, ect... then study other drawings to see how each element goes to the different effects.. Experimentation is also good for learning.. :wink:

thanks for that

[Z!re]

I didnt make any point about PNGs or GIFs

You save your images with too many colors, making them take up more space than needed.

Thanks for the advice, I'll try to do as you have suggessted

[Spotted Cheetah]

Try Gimp. I wondered first how good it was at image optimizing. For JPG usually 80% quality + 20% smoothness turns out well (For others: usually smoothness=100-quality). For PNG/GIF with a good dithering algorithm usually 64 colors is enough for almost anything, but this varies. Some images look good even with just 16 colors while some others can be ruined with even 256 colors (so make JPG instead...). My usual 120*90 thumbnalis are never larger than 2-4Kb.


Word + HTML: better to throw that mess off the window

[Adigun A. Polack]

To Z!re again:

Hey, that’s right!! ( :o ) Wow, I once might have noticed a BIG difference in the reduction of file sizes myself, whereas a picture with smaller colors indeed will obviously amount to a smaller file size versus the very same picture with larger amounts of colors that will result to a huge chunk of file size, even if they are the same *exact* physical size. I’m a take your advice here into serious consideration, Z!re. Mark my words.

And let us not forget: very excellently said from you, by the way!! =b



And also to you, Spotted Cheetah:

I have not even tried the GIMP yet, but I promise you that it will be worth a shot on the image optimizing thing you just talked about. And, I *strongly* agree with both you and Z!re on that. I am gonna take your advice into serious consideration as well. (^_-)//



I wanna thank you both tonight for such a wonderful time, Z!re and Spotted Cheetah, and you two enjoy this brand-new week now as I get started!! !




- Adigun Azikiwe Polack
One of the Founders of “Aura Flow” ::: Continuing Developer of “Frantic Journey”
Current Developer of “Star Angelic Slugger” ::: Webmaster of the “AAP Official Projects Squad”
Original Creator of the “The New FreeBASIC 8-Bit Palette Machine”

[Z!re]

You're welcome.

[aetherfox]

My point was that Bryce produces what you were trying to make in that picture infintely more realistically in a shorter time.

Try POV-Ray...it's free.

GIMPShop rocks, it's basically a version of GIMP that is recompiled with the Photoshop interface - brilliant idea.