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.

>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.

>
>> 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 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.

>
>> > > 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.

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

Post a reply to this message