On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:31:17 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:49:22 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>>
>> > 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,
>>
>> Dear me. Look on the images group and you will see.
>
>I meant your sentance doesn't make sense.  In particular the "...available
>from me down." bit!

Look do I have to spell it out for you? Are you really struggling with
this? Well tough.

>
>> > 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.
>>
>> This has already been covered. If you can't keep up, don't bother.
>
>Yeah I thought it had too!

When why are you going around in circles?

>
>> > > 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.
>>
>> They do not exist for a start.
>
>You're full of silly comments, of course they do, it's just *you* don't know
>what the figure is.  Hence I asked you to *estimate*!

Estimates are bad guesses. I will have no truck with anything that
smacks of statistics. Real figures yes, stats no.

>
>> > 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?
>>
>> Again, you are worrying to much about actual numbers.
>
>Please estimate what % of people will downgrade your image to 8-bit before
>viewing it.

Stop worrying about numbers.

>
>> > > > > 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.
>>
>> Yadda yadda.
>
>Look, if you're not even going answer any questions or comments I put to
>you, what's the point in you posting?  

I could ask the same about you.

>I wasn't sure to start with, but
>quite clearly you are just trolling.  I'd rather spend my time debating with
>people who respond to my views.  Plonk!

Not sure? 

Really, you must surely know the difference between a true troll and
someone who knows what they are writing about.

>

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message