 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 18:27:55 -0500, jgentry <jge### [at] ev1 filternet> wrote:
>
><sigh>
>
>IMBJR = *plonk* since shortly after his posts on this started to degrade
>to profanity.
Good. The less I have to hear from the likes of you the better.
>
>If the profanity and intentional "egging-on" don't stop, will he get the
>Bill Treatment?
Ooo. Is that what happened to DeWitt? I wondered why the record of his
postings seemed to show a stop at about July of last year.
>
>I don't really care what format he posts his images in, but isn't using
>profane language (at least) against the povray forums rules and
>regulations?
Yes, apparently it is and I've said I shall keep my tongue tied on
that subject. Keep up.
>
>-->Jeff
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:28:50 +0200, Severi Salminen
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>
>> Don't be so _silly_. Why must you make such _silly_ remarks? Are you that
>> childish that you can't resist making such _silly_ little pokes at
>> people?
>
>Wow, you were capable of using the word "silly" 3 times _in three
>consecutive sentences!!!
It's called emphasis - for drilling a point home into the more dense
head around here.
>Congratulations! I _underlined_ them for your
>reference... Could you also do a four in a row? You can also use another
>adjective instead.
'Silly' is good enough for the likes of you.
>
>You actually seem to be a funny fellow. With all the time you are
>putting to this the-most-useful-thread-of-the-month you could've already
>programmed a JPEG2000 plug-in for my Thunderbird email/news client for
>me to see your marvellous images.
Really? I'm not that good a programmer. Now you are being silly in
inflating my abilities.
And it's not time-wasted either. You see I'm quite capable of doing
other things on this machine whilst you lot knock your heads together.
>Now I can only imagine the smoothness
>of color gradations they have (even when dithered) and the lack of all
>those evil and nasty JPEG artifacts, not to mention the 65ms reduction
>in download time ;-)
No you can't. I suspect your imagination only works in greyscale.
>
>Severi
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 18:24:30 -0500, Eamon Caddigan <eca### [at] uiucedu>
wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> On 7 Mar 2004 17:50:32 -0500, Eamon Caddigan <eca### [at] uiucedu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:29:30 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>IMBJR wrote:
>>>>>> I live in an area where the telco has seen fit not to cover properly.
>>>>>
>>>>>What? Surely if enough consumers demand it, the telco will provide it! I
>>>>>mean, clearly the demand is there. You're just too lazy.
>>>>
>>>> Hey, parrot boy. Come up with something a little more original than
>>>> that. That's just first-grade heckling.
>>>>
>>>> PS. This is indeed how it works - demand targets are set by the telco,
>>>> but actually the technology will just not cover my home area.
>>>
>>>Looks like you drew the short straw when they were handing out broadband
>>>coverage then.
>>
>> Damn straight I did. I'm ever so slightly out of range. It's a pain in
>> the bum for sure - otherwise I'd be able to publish much large
>> projects involving animation.
>
>You should move.
It certainly has crossed my mind, but that's not a very sensible
reason for moving.
>
>-Eamon
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 15:38:37 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
>
>IMBJR wrote:
>
>> But that does not stop me from replying. Tis the nature of usenet.
>> Deal with it.
>
>This is not usenet. This is a privately owned news server that neither
>takes a feed from, nor provides a feed to, usenet. That it remains wholly
>unmoderated is a testament to the general good behavior of its guests.
You really are stuck in a tape loop aren't you?
I think you will find the majority of usenet servers privately owned.
Just because this one is isolated from the rest of usenet does not
make it any less a form of usenet.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:40:20 -0700, Patrick Elliott
<sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>In article <u2vm409qvgdd339nmqov7ecjrbsup3l58a@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere
>says...
>> Mmm, perhaps. But imagine if the camera makers decide to plump for
>> JPEG2000 then we shall see.
>>
>
>Oh joy.. From one lossy compression method in a camera to another
>slightly improved one for a device that you can't really afford to lose
Slightly!? I beg to differ.
>any quality with in the first place... No thanks. It is bad enough now
>where your only option is taking 1-2 uncompressed images or 50 crappy
>ones, adding an 'improved' crappy version instead of at least making some
>attempt at a lossless compression method won't imho do anything to
>correct this flaw in cameras. Now maybe with something like PNG, I would
>still only be able to take 25 pictures, but they would still be *good*
>and complete images, not something you can apply several PhotoShop
>plugins to that do nothing but turn a sharp, crisp, but screwed up image
>into a blurry, eye watering slightly less screwed up appearing final
>result. :(
Actually, I'd rather not have a JPEG2000-supporting camera - I'd refer
TIIF or RAW.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 15:38:37 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >IMBJR wrote:
> >
> >> But that does not stop me from replying. Tis the nature of usenet.
> >> Deal with it.
> >
> >This is not usenet. This is a privately owned news server that neither
> >takes a feed from, nor provides a feed to, usenet. That it remains wholly
> >unmoderated is a testament to the general good behavior of its guests.
>
> You really are stuck in a tape loop aren't you?
>
> I think you will find the majority of usenet servers privately owned.
>
> Just because this one is isolated from the rest of usenet does not
> make it any less a form of usenet.
When news servers are networked together they are part of a users
network of news servers (usenet). A stand alone news server, that
is not networked with other news servers, is just a news server.
The differences are subtle but they are there. Last I'll say on
the subject.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:iq3n401hi3fcssalickm9vl69go9uqavup@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:36:27 -0600, "Fernando G. del Cueto"
> <fcu### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Indeed. People here really need to get off their arses and stop
> wallowing in the past.
Even though I agree with your willingness to adopt JPEG2000, I don't think
you should take it so personally. Everybody has their right and their
reasons to agree and disagree on the adoption of this format in this group.
I also prefer to go to some troubles to see JP2 images and avoid those ugly
JPG artifacts. Some people don't. Some people prefer comfort and stability.
I think that's absolutely respectable.
I understand you may feel frustrated by the response of the majority. But I,
for one, think that getting along is much more important than the usage of
any format in the group. Of course, that's my debatable opinion.
Fernando
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> writes:
> PNG is still bulky compared with JPEG/JPEG2000.
For the sake of it I installed JasPer, converted your "marbles" image
to PNG and pngcrushed it. A whooping 8kB larger than the JPEG2000 you
posted on p.b.i. It's 8bit per channel though, but I had to reduce the
color depth to view the image anyway.
--
http://arose.hopto.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Personally, as I said, I would really like to see this format accepted
> for use in the image group. It seems that the arguments against it are
> mainly related to people's inertia to install the required software,
> but that personally smacks of laziness and allows the major software
> vendors to sit on their hands. If you sit still, you are going to find
> yourself more and more in difficulty trying to deal with what the rest
> of the graphics community is up to.
Even if the hardcore POV'ers decide to install jpeg2000, what about
newcomers and guests who can't see the images and say "argh, stupid, I'm
outta here". This isn't what we need. These groups should not promote rare
file-formats or provide a testing ground for file-formats. Jpeg2000 is still
rare - your posts are my first encounter with the format, and I'm not going
to install the buggy Irfanwiew again. Last time it messed up my computer.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> spewed forth:
> Keep the fuck up. Did I not say elsewhere that if I wanted comments I
> would ask for them? I post them because I have something to post. This
> is a POV-Ray newserver is it not? I wish to let people look at my work
> if they so wish, I don't expect or require comments.
Then why waste the POV-Team's webspace with your images? You have your own
website, place your images there until your face turns blue.
Honestly, my feelings are this:
1) You're being rude, and you continue to be rude on these groups,
disrespecting every single indvidual on here. You're a self-centered
foul-mouth twit.
2) JPEG2000 may very well be a better JPEG, obviously very few companies and
individuals have adopted this format. People are having difficulties viewing
the images.
3) Someone, in a misguided act of kindness decided to post your image in JPG
format so everyone can see it, since this is what you wanted, then why whine
about it so much?
Contrary to what you might believe, you might be wrong sometiems, and other
people may actually be right. This is not a question of whose opinion is
valid, but more of a question of what would be the proper thing to do?
BTW, in p.b.a I posted an animation that no one seemed to be able to view, I
promptly followed up with one that was viewable by the majority. I didn't
start an argument, I didn't jump down anyone's throat, I corrected the
problem. Of course, people like you can do no wrong.. so I don't expect you
to understand how one can corrct one's on mistakes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
