On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:08:11 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote this:
>> You've also got to learn to think things through.
>
>after having written this:
>> I AM OUT OF RANGE OF BROADBAND. I CANNOT USE IT.
>
>What you meant to say was you were out of range of ADSL from your local
>exchange.  We have broadband installed and we are almost 10 miles from the
>exchange.

Well, duh!

>

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10 Mar 2004 21:19:40 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:

>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in
>news:e4uu40hgiu8nhv7i1a5s8uuble43a9ni36@4ax.com: 
>
>
>>>
>>>Just think of this server as one those islands of
>>>civility.  It certianly has an amazing gallery.
>> 
>> Comparing this place with NYC's finest is a joke.
>> 
>
>The highlights of my trip to Europe last month, were the Louvre, MontMarte 
>at night, dinner with Apache, and lunch with Gilles.  It was a trip I will 
>long remember.  IMHO, this is a community with amazing people.

This is a news server with amazing (?) people.

>
>
>That reminds me... 
>
>Jim...you there? 
>
>Are you gonna be at the NYCMG meeting next week? 

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

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:jlj15050lof9p8uosdlnjqaf30gkat65b6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:02:12 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:

> >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.
>
>

After just reading this entire thread of 190+ messages, I hesitate to get
involved in this nonsense. Alas, i dive in...

I don't consider waiting until something it robust, and easily usable a
technophobe. If that were the case, I would be a technophobe for not keeping
my linux kernel up to date with the latest experimental patch. It's an "ease
of use", "out of sight, out of mind" thing, not a fear of new technologies.

IBBJR, I do have a question for you that came up in reading the large number
of posts in this thread. If you are only concerned for the image quality of
your art to be maintained, not really interested in comments about it, and
don't care if anyone really sees it (but hope that some people will look at
it?), and are concerned for bandwidth, why not post to
povray.binaries.scene-files or povray.text.scene-files? that way, people can
render your work in the full glory of uncompressed 16 bit images at whatever
resolution they want. Additionally, consider you have just text files as
povray source (i.e., no image maps or other non-text data). A 180kb text
file could theoretically compress down well below the size of a compressed
image file, thus saving you the time it takes to upload files to the news
server. Uploading seems to be your primary concern, because you never wanted
to force others to post in jpg2000, you just wanted to be allowed to do so.
Is the assumption of uploading being your concern true? It does however put
the burden of viewing the image on the shoulders of the other person, but in
this case, they already have the software (povray) to do so.

by the way, and neither here nor there, i wholey disagree with you on your
arguments that news.povray.org is part of Usenet. i just had to mention it
because it was particularly bugging me. along with your argument that the
Internet came into existence the first time people connected two computers
together. "internets" and the "Internet" are networks, but not all networks
(for example, the first two computers ever connected) are internets. i would
only consider a network to be an internet or part of an internet if it in
some way used the IP stack. Usenet is a system of sharing nntp feeds between
servers. While news.povray.org runs on nntp, it is not a part of the system
that shares feeds. not a part of the Usenet system.

that being said, i need to get home before the laundromat closes and i can'
t do my laundry goodnight. happy tracing,
ross

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:15:10 -0500, "Ross Litscher"
<rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:


>After just reading this entire thread of 190+ messages, I hesitate to get
>involved in this nonsense. Alas, i dive in...
>
>I don't consider waiting until something it robust, and easily usable a
>technophobe. If that were the case, I would be a technophobe for not keeping
>my linux kernel up to date with the latest experimental patch. It's an "ease
>of use", "out of sight, out of mind" thing, not a fear of new technologies.

JPEG2000 != experimental patch as they say in C++

>
>IBBJR, I do have a question for you that came up in reading the large number
>of posts in this thread. If you are only concerned for the image quality of
>your art to be maintained, not really interested in comments about it, and
>don't care if anyone really sees it (but hope that some people will look at
>it?), and are concerned for bandwidth, why not post to
>povray.binaries.scene-files or povray.text.scene-files? that way, people can
>render your work in the full glory of uncompressed 16 bit images at whatever
>resolution they want. 

An interesting idea for sure. Makes one wonder exactly where the
copyright on the image itself produced lies.

As for giving the code away. I'd rather not. It's not as if it's a
trade secret or I use some very skillful programming, it's just that
it's the means to the end. If I were doing 2D work, it would be like
giving away the Photoshop file, or even the source images and telling
people how to knock them together.

>Additionally, consider you have just text files as
>povray source (i.e., no image maps or other non-text data). 

Quite often I do have image data to consider, as I like the
eval_pigment function a lot.

>A 180kb text
>file could theoretically compress down well below the size of a compressed
>image file, thus saving you the time it takes to upload files to the news
>server. Uploading seems to be your primary concern, because you never wanted
>to force others to post in jpg2000, you just wanted to be allowed to do so.
>Is the assumption of uploading being your concern true? It does however put
>the burden of viewing the image on the shoulders of the other person, but in
>this case, they already have the software (povray) to do so.

My main concern was keeping the intent of the master image as much as
possible. Of course, the image group is not about best quality, but I
like to get close with my 'net-based intent.

>
>by the way, and neither here nor there, i wholey disagree with you on your
>arguments that news.povray.org is part of Usenet. i just had to mention it
>because it was particularly bugging me. along with your argument that the
>Internet came into existence the first time people connected two computers
>together. "internets" and the "Internet" are networks, but not all networks
>(for example, the first two computers ever connected) are internets. i would
>only consider a network to be an internet or part of an internet if it in
>some way used the IP stack. 

That's why I mentioned a transport protocol in one posting. I agree 2
computers together are not the start of the net - but that protocol
was I believe a founding principle.

>Usenet is a system of sharing nntp feeds between
>servers. While news.povray.org runs on nntp, it is not a part of the system
>that shares feeds. not a part of the Usenet system.

Mmm, even a node that is not connects is still a node.

>
>that being said, i need to get home before the laundromat closes and i can'
>t do my laundry goodnight. happy tracing,
>ross
>

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

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:uij150dp4fgpu4c9n1603gnnft5fjrveu7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:08:36 -0600, "GreyBeard"
> <r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet> wrote:
>
> >
> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> >news:abuu40pefkqd07a7uk8fqvat1ndcua1vbt@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> The scanner they use for the negatives? You *are* referring to
> >> chemical prints aren't you?
> >>
> >Perchance you should learn the terminology before inserting foot in open
> >mouth.  I'm afraid photography was around in a more advanced state long
> >before digital was anything but a term for counting on ones fingers.
>
> Excuse me, but I sincerely did think were were talking about chemical
> photography here and therefore a scanner would eventually come into
> play to get into the digital realm.
>
I rather think that if digital is the final outcome, I might be wasting a
lot of money using Tech Pan 4 X 5 negatives.  I use nothing faster than ASA
100, why would I downgrade my images?

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:55:00 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
>> IMBJR wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:36:15 -0800, "Chambers"
>>> <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>>>> news:b8as40d47rtbrt8ih37iq1imnhvt7dckqo@4ax.com...
>>>>> Don't kid yourself that this is a community. A community happens
>>>>> in "meatspace", face to face, in real buildings with real
>>>>> progress. This is merely a exchange of data.
>>>>
>>>> I will take personal offense at this.
>>>>
>>>> This *is* a community.  The individuals here are more intelligent,
>>>> capable, considerate, helpful and productive than any other group I
>>>> have known.  This community produces incredible artwork, as well as
>>>> the tools to create it.  I am proud of the fact that I am allowed a
>>>> space here in these forums*, and I don't appreciate your attitude
>>>> in this respect.
>>>
>>> Believe you me, comparing this news server and it contents to a
>>> community is inaccurate to say the least.
>>
>> Look up community in the dictionary "A group of people having common
>> interests" seems to crop up.
>
> Using a dictionary to define such a word is like using the self same
> dictionary to find a recipe for a cake - woefully skimpy on detail.

Haha what a bizarre reply, I suppose you think the "scientific community" is
a city in America somewhere with lots of scientists!

>>> People here post images, binaries, bits of POV code. They critique
>>> images and points of view. Share ideas on POV-Ray and its satellites
>>> of software. Some even discuss off-topic stuff like on the rest of
>>> usenet.
>>
>> Sounds just like a community to me.
>
> No. Sounds like usenet to me.

Indeed it does, but it *is* also a community (have you still not looked it
up in the dictionary yet?)

>>> In a real "meatspace" community the depth of interaction makes the
>>> above list of activitys look extremely small. The true personal
>>> touch is where community is really at. This is merely a digital
>>> facimile of a community, and as such does not go to the nth degree.
>>>
>>> Try comparing this place and its sister groups to, say, a village
>>> or a city - both communities of differing scale. That will ensure
>>> that one will see that this is a merely drop in the ocean of human
>>> interaction.
>>
>> How many people in your village/town/city have you spoken to about
>> POV?  I think this community is far better than my "real-life" one
>> for discussing POV.
>
> Quite a few actually: my wife, people at work, friends I know. Don't
> think of POV as something special that only a select few talk about -
> it's just a piece of software people use.

Indeed, but not very many people, hence this community is far more
productive than the couple of people I know at work who use POV.

Post a reply to this message

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.

>> 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.

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:cej1501gd3d9mmh0a5l6b9gmdpqsfo129k@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:18:02 -0800, "Chambers"
> Perhaps your personal circumstances have not permitted it, but every
> city is a hive of cummunities that buzz with activity - from social
> groups,

What do you call these forums?

> places of shared entertainment,

What do you call these forums?

> support networks,

What do you call these forums?

> open spaces.

Ok, this one is more metaphorical, but it could still work :)

> They are more of the community fabric that you would like to think.

Same for these forums :)

-- 
...Chambers
http://www.geocities.com/bdchambers79

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:uij150dp4fgpu4c9n1603gnnft5fjrveu7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:08:36 -0600, "GreyBeard"
> <r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet> wrote:
>
> >
> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> >news:abuu40pefkqd07a7uk8fqvat1ndcua1vbt@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> The scanner they use for the negatives? You *are* referring to
> >> chemical prints aren't you?
> >>
> >Perchance you should learn the terminology before inserting foot in open
> >mouth.  I'm afraid photography was around in a more advanced state long
> >before digital was anything but a term for counting on ones fingers.
>
> Excuse me, but I sincerely did think were were talking about chemical
> photography here and therefore a scanner would eventually come into
> play to get into the digital realm.

The discussion *is* about chemical photography, which is why a scanner is
completely unnecessary.  Using chemical prints, you can blow up negatives
even 100x at a very high quality, all without any digital equipment.  A
scanner, as you say, is only needed to get the image into the digital realm,
but the point was you could have much higher quality without entering the
digital realm.

(At least, that's how I read the discussion - someone feel free to correct
me if I'm wrong).

-- 
...Chambers
http://www.geocities.com/bdchambers79

Post a reply to this message

"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr" <"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr"> wrote in message
news:404b761f@news.povray.org...
> The only things I heard about with more than 8 bits are the hi ends DVD
> players with 10 bits per component, so I believe that MAYBE some hi end
> gfx-cards may have more than 32 bits display...

The Permidia cards are capable of doing 10bits per channel (as well as a
3-display "surround-vision" thingy which is supposedly really cool for
games, but I haven't tried it myself :)

However, then you get limited by the quality of your monitor...

-- 
...Chambers
http://www.geocities.com/bdchambers79

Post a reply to this message