Re: map

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Bruce, how's this for a map? It'd probably be trivial if you wanted one
color for the land and make the water blue.

http://www.pop4.net/~vev/bigworld.gif

It is nice looking. Would people prefer this?

I like the rotating globe, since its realy "cool" to look at...but its too
small...we're going to end up crowding things...

I prefer the 'flat-globe' for what you are attempting to do...its also
easier to see...you don't have to "follow the dot"...

Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

I like the rotating globe, since its realy "cool" to look at...but its too
small...we're going to end up crowding things...

I prefer the 'flat-globe' for what you are attempting to do...its also
easier to see...you don't have to "follow the dot"...

Done. I can play with the colors and stuff.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thus spake Bruce Momjian

Bruce, how's this for a map? It'd probably be trivial if you wanted one
color for the land and make the water blue.

http://www.pop4.net/~vev/bigworld.gif

It is nice looking. Would people prefer this?

I vote yes. The spinning globe doesn't really do much for me.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

How difficult would it be to allow attribute
names to be aliased when inheriting:

CREATE TABLE base
( oldtag TEXT );

CREATE TABLE derived
( more_attrib INT4 )
INHERITS(base)
--
WITH base.oldtag
AS derived.newtag

So that

SELECT * from derived

newtag | more_attrib
-------+-----------
der#1 | derived value #1

and

SELECT * from base*

oldtag
------
base #1
der #1

Thoughts? Is this _that_ bad of an idea. I think
it would really help to manage aggregation complexity.

I suppose this is a big project hunh?

Thanks!

Clark Evans

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Bruce, how's this for a map? It'd probably be trivial if you wanted one
color for the land and make the water blue.

http://www.pop4.net/~vev/bigworld.gif

It is nice looking. Would people prefer this?

I like the rotating globe, since its realy "cool" to look at...but its too
small...we're going to end up crowding things...

I prefer the 'flat-globe' for what you are attempting to do...its also
easier to see...you don't have to "follow the dot"...

OK, new map, older dots, but they now have fuzzy edges. Much better.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Clark Evans <clark.evans@manhattanproject.com> writes:

How difficult would it be to allow attribute
names to be aliased when inheriting:
...
Thoughts? Is this _that_ bad of an idea.

It seems like a horrible idea to me ;-). The point of inheritance
is that whatever else your derived class may be, it *IS A* parent-
class object as well, and anything that works on the parent class
will work on the subclass. In your example,
SELECT more_attrib FROM base where oldtag = something;
would work but
SELECT more_attrib FROM derived where oldtag = something;
would fail. That's not my idea of a derived class.

It's not clear exactly what you want to accomplish here, but I
wonder whether inheritance is the right model for the relationships
among the tables in your database at all. It seems like you are
trying to force-fit some other kind of relationship into the
inheritance model.

regards, tom lane

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

I prefer the 'flat-globe' for what you are attempting to do...its also
easier to see...you don't have to "follow the dot"...

OK, new map, older dots, but they now have fuzzy edges. Much better.

I like the look better, but (putting on my graphics-guy hat) that GIF
is *huge*. 175K is a tad of an excessive download for a web-page
frammish. Also it doesn't look very good if your browser's page
background is not white --- there's a white ring around each
continent thanks to poor antialiasing.

The extent of the dithering makes me think the image was made from a
truecolor original. If so JPEG at a moderately high quality setting
would work better (and look much better on truecolor displays), though
you'd lose the ability to have a transparent background. PNG is also a
possibility if you want to assume that visitors have recent browsers.

regards, tom lane
organizer, Independent JPEG Group
member, PNG development group

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

I prefer the 'flat-globe' for what you are attempting to do...its also
easier to see...you don't have to "follow the dot"...

OK, new map, older dots, but they now have fuzzy edges. Much better.

I like the look better, but (putting on my graphics-guy hat) that GIF
is *huge*. 175K is a tad of an excessive download for a web-page
frammish.

175K? It started at 24K, a load/save in xv brings it back to 24K.

Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:

175K? It started at 24K, a load/save in xv brings it back to 24K.

Why, so it does --- didn't think to try that. Bruce, are you using
something that outputs "uncompressed GIF" to avoid the LZW patent?

My remarks about dithering and the antialias ring still stand though.

regards, tom lane

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

I prefer the 'flat-globe' for what you are attempting to do...its also
easier to see...you don't have to "follow the dot"...

OK, new map, older dots, but they now have fuzzy edges. Much better.

I like the look better, but (putting on my graphics-guy hat) that GIF
is *huge*. 175K is a tad of an excessive download for a web-page
frammish. Also it doesn't look very good if your browser's page

Not sure about that. You can read the text below as it is loading. The
browser seems to know the image size.

background is not white --- there's a white ring around each
continent thanks to poor antialiasing.

We force a cream background for that page, no?

The extent of the dithering makes me think the image was made from a
truecolor original. If so JPEG at a moderately high quality setting
would work better (and look much better on truecolor displays), though
you'd lose the ability to have a transparent background. PNG is also a
possibility if you want to assume that visitors have recent browsers.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

I prefer the 'flat-globe' for what you are attempting to do...its also
easier to see...you don't have to "follow the dot"...

OK, new map, older dots, but they now have fuzzy edges. Much better.

I like the look better, but (putting on my graphics-guy hat) that GIF
is *huge*. 175K is a tad of an excessive download for a web-page
frammish.

175K? It started at 24K, a load/save in xv brings it back to 24K.

Let me look at that. Seems to have grown somehow. It is the
transparency that is causing it. I am using 'convert' to add the
transparency. Have other people seen 'transparancy' increasing the file
size?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Let me look at that. Seems to have grown somehow. It is the
transparency that is causing it. I am using 'convert' to add the
transparency. Have other people seen 'transparancy' increasing the file
size?

Convert (if you meant ImageMagic's convert) definetely does not use LZW to
compress GIFs :(

-- 
Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
+  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Oleg.
----
Oleg Broytmann http://members.xoom.com/phd2/ phd2@earthling.net
Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Let me look at that. Seems to have grown somehow. It is the
transparency that is causing it. I am using 'convert' to add the
transparency. Have other people seen 'transparancy' increasing the file
size?

Convert (if you meant ImageMagic's convert) definetely does not use LZW to
compress GIFs :(

Man, that stinks. OK, I am now using giftrans, and that works and
produces small files.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 12:26:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: phd2@earthling.net
Cc: vev@michvhf.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: map

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Let me look at that. Seems to have grown somehow. It is the
transparency that is causing it. I am using 'convert' to add the
transparency. Have other people seen 'transparancy' increasing the file
size?

Convert (if you meant ImageMagic's convert) definetely does not use LZW to
compress GIFs :(

Man, that stinks. OK, I am now using giftrans, and that works and
produces small files.

I see a big thread in mailing list about 'map', so let me also
post a reference to gifsicle. This is a great tool !

http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~eddietwo/gifsicle/

Regards,

Oleg

-- 
Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
+  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Let me look at that. Seems to have grown somehow. It is the
transparency that is causing it. I am using 'convert' to add the
transparency. Have other people seen 'transparancy' increasing the file
size?

Convert (if you meant ImageMagic's convert) definetely does not use LZW to
compress GIFs :(

I now see ImageMagick 3.9 has:

Enable LZW compression with -HasLZW. See Magick.tmpl or Makefile.in.

I am running 3.8.9. Oh, well, have to wait for a BSD/OS upgrade, or do
it myself.

Actually, changelog for 3.7.* say:

Rather than a separate LZW kit, Image Magic now comes as two
distributions. One with LZW compression
and one without (suggested by pederl@norway.hp.com).

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

background is not white --- there's a white ring around each
continent thanks to poor antialiasing.

We force a cream background for that page, no?

It's gray on my browser (Netscape 4.0something). Even if it were
cream, the background of the gif is *white* not cream, so the ring
would still be there (maybe a little harder to see though).

Since GIF hasn't got partial transparency, you can't do real
antialiasing without making the background colors match.
You're probably best off not using transparency at all, unless
you forget about antialiasing. (Or is it antialiasing that's
leaving the near-white pixels there? Maybe it's just sloppy drawing
of the border of the transparent region?)

regards, tom lane

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

background is not white --- there's a white ring around each
continent thanks to poor antialiasing.

We force a cream background for that page, no?

It's gray on my browser (Netscape 4.0something). Even if it were
cream, the background of the gif is *white* not cream, so the ring
would still be there (maybe a little harder to see though).

Since GIF hasn't got partial transparency, you can't do real
antialiasing without making the background colors match.
You're probably best off not using transparency at all, unless
you forget about antialiasing. (Or is it antialiasing that's
leaving the near-white pixels there? Maybe it's just sloppy drawing
of the border of the transparent region?)

Did you take a look at my one? It's using transparency too,
but since I created the image by program, there are only 4
colors at all (plus tranparent). Has it noise too or is it
O.K.?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

background is not white --- there's a white ring around each
continent thanks to poor antialiasing.

We force a cream background for that page, no?

It's gray on my browser (Netscape 4.0something). Even if it were
cream, the background of the gif is *white* not cream, so the ring
would still be there (maybe a little harder to see though).

Since GIF hasn't got partial transparency, you can't do real
antialiasing without making the background colors match.
You're probably best off not using transparency at all, unless
you forget about antialiasing. (Or is it antialiasing that's
leaving the near-white pixels there? Maybe it's just sloppy drawing
of the border of the transparent region?)

I am confused. I don't even know what anti-aliasing is. Nor do I
understand why you get a grey background. I am running Netscape 4.5,
and I see the background of all the pages as off-white.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

background is not white --- there's a white ring around each
continent thanks to poor antialiasing.

We force a cream background for that page, no?

It's gray on my browser (Netscape 4.0something). Even if it were
cream, the background of the gif is *white* not cream, so the ring
would still be there (maybe a little harder to see though).

Since GIF hasn't got partial transparency, you can't do real
antialiasing without making the background colors match.
You're probably best off not using transparency at all, unless
you forget about antialiasing. (Or is it antialiasing that's
leaving the near-white pixels there? Maybe it's just sloppy drawing
of the border of the transparent region?)

I am confused. I don't even know what anti-aliasing is. Nor do I
understand why you get a grey background. I am running Netscape 4.5,
and I see the background of all the pages as off-white.

If the <BODY> doesn't define a background, Netscape uses it's
(configurable) default one. So your config say's white (why
not slategray?).

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #

I am confused. I don't even know what anti-aliasing is. Nor do I
understand why you get a grey background. I am running Netscape 4.5,
and I see the background of all the pages as off-white.

If the <BODY> doesn't define a background, Netscape uses it's
(configurable) default one. So your config say's white (why
not slategray?).

But there is a style sheet, no?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

On 10-Mar-99 Jan Wieck wrote:

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

I am confused. I don't even know what anti-aliasing is. Nor do I
understand why you get a grey background. I am running Netscape 4.5,
and I see the background of all the pages as off-white.

If the <BODY> doesn't define a background, Netscape uses it's
(configurable) default one. So your config say's white (why
not slategray?).

It's defined in the style sheet for the page as: #fffdec

Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================