 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> I believe it is not, because AFAIK it is not free (you have to pay to
> get the specification), and there may be patent issues.
> IMO that disqualifies it as an internet file format.
Do you seriously think JPEG is completely free of patents?
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Any comments?
I am, personally, against this format for some reasons:
1) I'm using Linux and I don't know how to display JPEG2000. None of the
three major programs (XV, Image Magick, Gimp-1.2.5) can open or save it.
2) For posting on news groups, you don't need a perfect display quality
and most of the time, a jpeg with max quality is enough. And when it is
not, PNG can be used. I know that the files are bigger, but at least,
this format is vastly implemented.
3) I'm asking this: What use is the 16 bits color depth if the
compression is not lossless. 16 bits color depth is only useful for
storage or use as master image before post processing. In this case the
compression must be lossless. As POV export to TIFF and PNG, use one of
those two!
Now, in one year or two, when (if) JPEG2000 takes jpeg's place and is as
widely spread, it will be another thing. But for the time, as more that
half of the users can't display it, using it for an other thing that
your personal use or between your friends (the ones that you KNOW can
display it) will only create the kind of reaction you get with your post.
Regards.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Do you seriously think JPEG is completely free of patents?
If you include trivial patents, probably not (and AFAIK there
are features in jpeg that nobody implements because there are
patent issues on them).
But jpeg has been there for a long time now, and there are LOTS of
implementations so it is highly unlikely that you get sued if you
make yet another implementation.
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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,
they're "backwards-thinking" or "incredibly lazy", use "more excuse than a
reason", etc.
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!
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
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".
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
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.
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Email: tim.nikias (@) nolights.de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in news:404b53d0@news.povray.org:
>
> How does PNG help to reduce file sizes compared to JPEG?
>
Not compared to jpeg, but compared to other uncompressed formats.
>
> But JPEG is "broken".
The p.b.i newsgroup is not broken. People can share images in a format
that is widely supported(jpeg). If the need arises there is an alternate
format that is almost as pervasive that uses completely lossless
compression for maximum image quality at greater than 8-bit color(PNG).
The p.b.a newsgroup "IS" broken. How many times have you read "I can't
see your animation" because somebody used some super new codec. Or worse
you have a dozen codecs installed just to read that newsgroup. Do we
really want to go down that road with p.b.i.
IMHO, this whole JPEG2000 debate is putting the cart before the horse.
First you define the problem, then you develop the solution. If the
problem is "displaying images of >8-bit color depth", then there are more
options available besides JPEG2000.
I personally prefer PNG and Open EXR ;)
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> Anyone here willing to discuss the JPEG2000 format and its use in
> these groups?
I also think that JPEG2000 should not be used in these groups until
there are newsreaders that have more or less integrated support for the
format. You can call it lazyness, I don't care, but the usage of an
external program for image viewing in these groups is very inconvenient,
awkward and slow - compared to inline viewing of JPEG images. At least
OE and Thunderbird don't support it - I'm not even sure if JPEG2000
licence permits a (free) plugin for Mozilla/Thunderbird (anyone know?).
I found no information that Opera or Forte Agent would have the support.
There are of course zillion other readers on both Win and other
platforms but the above are the more common ones. But if and when the
support becomes common I favor the usage of JPEG2000 also in these groups.
And _even_ if the decoder did automatically dither (I don't know if they
usually do) the 16-bit image to reduce banding it would still be of
little advantage when the majority of images posted in new.povray are so
small the the banding is usually not even visible. And sometimes a
dithered image looks even worse than the one with slight banding. But of
course, Jpeg2000 has other merits more important than being 16-bit.
Severi S.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:d1bm40hmv75jeiuj3cp3v1382aon91bpk9@4ax.com IMBJR wrote:
> 2. Representation of 16-bit colour depth. Very good, since POV-Ray is
> capable of producing 16-bit colour depth images. The downside is the
> receiving machine's capabilites in regards to this, but at least the
> 16-bit intent is preserved.
Just wondering, what does Irfanview do to 6 bit jpeg200 images. Does it
show it as a 16 bit image or does it downsample it? Most software does
for 16 bit png's.
In general, 16 bit images have their purposes, but i.m.o. showing images
on monitors is not one of them. The main advantage of 16 bit images over
8 bit images is the extended contrast range. A contrast range that a crt
can't show and lcd / plasma screens are even worse in this regard.
16 bit images are nice for photographic printing on slide material as
they can show a bigger contrast range. 16 bit images are nice as an
intermediate format between rendering and showing on screen as an 8 bit
image. It gives you the possibility to control contrast a lot better by
converting to 8 / 12 / whatever bit images using a controlable transfer
function. In this regard, search for some of Kari Kivisalo's work on
this newsserver.
If the intent is preservation of the original, I would not use any lossy
compression.
'Pushing' towards a "standard" or even a new format in these greedy
times, knowing that there are patent issues i.m.o. is a folly of the
jpeg committee.
In general, I don't care in what format an image or animation is posted.
If I can't see it, so be it.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:Xns94A5C0D7BE71Cseed7@news.povray.org ingo wrote:
> Just wondering, what does Irfanview do to 6 bit jpeg200 images.
That should read
"Just wondering, what does Irfanview do to 16 bit jpeg200 images."
An interesting aspect of jpeg2000 could be the jpeg3d part:
http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg2000/j2kpart10.html
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <404b53d0@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> But JPEG is "broken". It causes files to be larger and have less
> quality than would be necessary. You demonstrably can have smaller
> file sizes with better image quality. Thus JPEG is not optimal
> and thus "broken". A fix has its place.
But JPEG 2000 is not a fix, it is a problem: It fails the fundamental design
goal of any exchange format: Simplicity. Both JPEG and PNG offer a simple
interchange format, JPEG 2000 is far from simple on the other hand. That it
offeres better lossy compression, well, that is to be expected from a format
created many years later, isn't it? ;-)
Fact is that JPEG 2000 has nothing really in common with JPEG other than the
group of experts who defined it. And that it offers "better" lossy
compression, well, lossy is lossy, so it hardly matters for a download if an
image is 10 or 8 KB in size. On the other hand it does matter if it takes
additional work to view those 8 KB, while viewing the 10 KB image is
possible absolutely everywhere - even on the web browser of a mobile phone,
for example. The complexity of the JPEG 2000 algorithms and implementation
makes this less feasible at the moment.
Either way, and even if you don't agree with me, there are two facts that
won't change soon:
The web news view vill only support the three standard web image formats
(GIF, PNG and JPEG).
By far most users here do obviously not have software to view JPEG 2000
installed.
Thus, it is not in the interest of anybody here to post in such a format.
Thorsten
PS: Wondering why I post in HTML? Well, everybody has a web browser and
HTML is widely supported and offers a superior content representation over
plain text, doesn't it? So, obviously we should be using it in these news
groups as well! ;-) ;-) ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: <http://mac.povray.org>
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (3 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
