IMBJR wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:26:34 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
> > IMBJR wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> Don't make such bold assumptions as to how many will. Try not to think
> of you as an example of how others will react.

Out of most people I know I think I am at the top end of using new
technologies out of all of them, thus I have no reason not to think that in
general most people won't bother installing or know how to install special
software for J2K.

> > > 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% :-)
>
> LOL Keep up.
> There's more than just 16-bit JPEG2000 images available from me down.

That sentance doesn't really make sense, but I don't understand how a 16-bit
image can be any better than an 8-bit image when displayed through 8-bit
DACs.  Please explain.

> Your obsession with actual figures is worrying. It's as if you have
> some higher knowledge of what takes place here. But you do not.

You're just scared of the figures.  You also seem incapable of answering
questions.  Please estimate what % of people will downgrade your image to
8-bit before viewing it.  I think it's quite high, what do you think?

> > > 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!
>
> Don't be silly. Re-read what people have been saying. Some have
> actually made the effort to learn more and try and use the software.

Indeed, and I'm one of the "some".  However the benefit of a slightly
smaller file size (or slightly worse compression) is not enough to spend 10
times longer opening each image.  When people can view J2K images just as
quickly as normal JPEGs, there will be no problem.

Post a reply to this message