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.

>
>>> 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.

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.


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

Post a reply to this message