> Seems more of an excuse than a reason.
...
> Except, that's not what I was about. There was no attempt to post a
> best-off, merely an attempt to retain 16-bit colour depth and minimise
> artifacts with what is now freely available to all.
...
> This a web forum, I guess? This of course means they are ham-strung
> somewhat by Microsoft as to what will display without so-called
> effort. Pity, people let such vendors decide for them what's so-called
> easy to digest.
...
> No, if I wanted comments I would have asked for them. Anyone who
> comments is merely commenting off their own bat. I post merely because
> I've a POV-Ray image to post. Comments are merely a side-effect of
> that.
...
> "Work"? Dear me, that really does make people sound incredibly lazy.
>
> As for the admins, surely it's in their interest to at least appear to
> be up-to-date with modern graphics developments and allow JPEG2000 to
> be posted. Sticking ones head in the sand is just going to make this
> community look backwards-thinking.

First of all, I don't like the aggressiveness of your replies. You go round
insulting people that, if they don't conform to your idea of development,
they're "backwards-thinking" or "incredibly lazy", use "more excuse than a
reason", etc.

Just take the fact, shall we?

JPEG2000 is a new, better performing image-compression than PNG or the old
JPEG. Great!
The majority of newsreaders don't support JPEG2000 so far, too bad!

The essence: if you post JPEG2000, you'll reach just about less than 1% of
the frequenters here. Is that efficient? I guess not. The admins decide if
that's fine with them, after all, its their webspace you want to use. You're
free to upload your JPEG2000 to your own website and post a link here.

And those facts don't have anything to do with "backwards-thinking".

Now to the lazyness and "microsoft-decisions" etc: if you're allowed to post
JPEG2000, then feel free to do so. Just dismissing arguments like "most apps
don't show JPEG2000" with "don't be too lazy, download x and the image,
install it and view it" isn't really effective: people use programs for ease
of use. If something new pops up, that new thing has to prove that it's
really worth a change. And so far, JPEG seems to do fine for most issues.
So, post a JPEG here and provide a link to a JPEG2000, those interested can
then go download JPEG2000.

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Email: tim.nikias (@) nolights.de

Post a reply to this message