On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 18:32:37 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim.nikias (@)
nolights.de> wrote:

>> 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,

Poor you. Sorry if I can't fluffy-puppy this up for you, but it's all
because of the treatment my original  JPEG2000 posting received at the
hands of someone who thought they knew better by downgrading the
quality of the image by posting it in JPEG format with substandard
settings. That was just plain cheeky and rude.

>they're "backwards-thinking" or "incredibly lazy", use "more excuse than a
>reason", etc.

It's only an opinion. Bloody hell, dont cry over it.

>
>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!

And customer movement towards better formats should be the order of
the day. Letting software vendors make the decisions is wrong.

>
>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

I would have thought people here would have preferred to be more at
the forefront of this sort of thing - you know, earler adaptors and
such - but all I see so far is a bunch of lazy people willing to let
software vendors dictate to them what they should be able to do with
their software.

>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".

Read above. They bloody well do.

>
>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

Ease of use in software is one of the bigger myths surrounding
software. I work in the software industry and as I've said else where
it really is case of one sort of drugery replaced by another.

>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.

For shame. Is that the best you people will allow? Again, it's inertia
and if its allowed to go on, it's going to make you all appear
retrogressive.

Come on, POV-Ray is quite an advanced tool and is used with other
advanced tools. To deny the posting of a particular format smacks of
not being able to encompass more of the same.


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

Post a reply to this message