IMBJR wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
> > IMBJR wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:02:12 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMBJR wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:59:40 -0800, Darren New
> > > > > <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > IMBJR wrote:
> > > > > > > Costs? The software can be sourced freely. Just because
> > > > > > > you've been bitten by software does not mean we all have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And just because I've been bitten by software doesn't mean
> > > > > > I'm lazy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've got you in love with that word "lazy", no?
> > > > >
> > > > > But seriously, again I say, just because you've had bad
> > > > > experiences with software in the past is no sign that it will
> > > > > happen again, either for you or others. Shying away from the
> > > > > new because of the old is not going to get you far. Sure we
> > > > > all to a degree do not like progress, but progress is always
> > > > > present.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, but IME it's safest to let other people do the initial
> > > > "progress" and let them face all the problems.  I'll take up
> > > > any new technology later after all the problems have been
> > > > ironed out and I don't have to waste my time fiddling about.
> > >
> > > The problems are never all ironed out. If you followed your rule
> > > to the letter you wouldn't even have appeared on this group.
> >
> > I call 99% of people not being able to see my images a fairly big
> > problem.
>
> I think that figure may be inaccurate. Plus, how do we go about
> measuring that figure. We cannot just simply ask whether or not people
> can see the image, we would have to also ask if they were able to do
> something that would enable them to see the image.

Well, I think if people can't see it using their normal methods for viewing
images then that counts as them not being able to see it.  It's pointless
trying to expect them to do anything different - most people won't.

> >
> > > > This J2K case is a perfect example.  Do I bother to download
> > > > extra software and have to spend extra time converting each
> > > > image to view it on my computer, risk the software doing
> > > > something nasty to my machine, and the massive risk that most
> > > > people won't be able to see my images?  Ok, so J2K is a better
> > > > format technically, but I'm not going to use it until it is the
> > > > "norm".
> > >
> > > LOL
> > >
> > > Such a good example of technophobia.
> >
> > If that's what you want to call it, but I think it's more commonly
> > used for people who don't take up established technology.
> >
> > Just count how much time has been wasted because of J2K.  All that
> > looking for software, all the postings here etc etc all the
> > conversions back to JPEG because nobody can view it - it's
> > ridiculous!  It's only people like you who insist on using it
> > before it's a properly established format.  Of course have a play
> > about with it by yourself if you have time, but please don't expect
> > everyone else to follow you immediately.
>
> I never expected them too. I never even expected to have to champion
> JPEG2000. I merely used it as a way of preserving image
> characteristics.

So, what % of people do you think are going to downgrade your image to 8-bit
before viewing it?  Ummm, I think that would be >99% :-)

> And as for it being a waste of time, no, in fact, judging by some of
> the replies it looks like it has been an education for some.

yeah, they've learnt that it isn't worth using at the moment!

Post a reply to this message