ingo wrote:

> 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.

I think 16-bit does not mean extended contrast range but simply greater 
precision leading to less banding _if_ the hardware does support it - 
also better results when editing an image. I think the values 
255,255,255 or 65535,65535,65535 are allways maximum (same) white. How 
white that is depends on the actual hardware used. So the contrast 
remains the same, only the number of grades increase.

Severi

Post a reply to this message

On 7 Mar 2004 11:27:39 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:

>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in news:afhm40de9d1agdf7cbsenivvrdidf5b73s@
>4ax.com:
>
>
>>>
>>>That's an opinion.  
>> 
>> Well, fucking duh. Like to point out the sky is blue?
>> 
>> Try actually responding sensibly to my opinion instead of merely
>> pointing out that it is one. Or can't you think of a better set of
>> arguments to defend your obviously lazy position?
>> 
>
>
>Was I disrespectful?  

No, just time-wasting.

>You certainly crossed the line, and not just in this 

Oh poor you. So easily upset. Get over it, or get behind your
killfile.

>post.  The vehemence of your responses in these threads has presented 
>opinion as self-evident fact.  Forgive me for trying a gentle reminder.  If 
>you are the only person pushing for JPEG2000 you may want to examine the 
>logic of incorporating them on these groups at this time.  

I may be the only person because the rest of you can't early-adapt for
some bizarre reason. There's always been an odd atmosphere in these
groups - and this atitude over a simple file format is just another
example of something definately off-kilter. I'm sorry if I don't
present myself in some sort of pre-approved-POV-Ray-user manner, but
that's just me - get over it and listen to the arguments instead of
finding yet more execuses to not bother with them.

I don't expect everyone to start posting JPEG2000 images. All I ask
for is the permission to post in that format. I don't care if people
can't see the resulting posted image, that's their problem for them to
decide what to do about - just like I suspect a lot of people don't
bother with the animation group because the postings are huge (some of
us still on the old 56k dial-up). Nannying these people by protecting
them from the format is the wrong way to go.

>
>
>My arguments for PNG have an advantage in that they are already and 
>accepted on these newsgroups as the preferred method for displaying images 
>with out loss of quality.  

I was not arguing for a format without loss of quality. Keep up. I was
arguing for a format with lossy compression that provides a better
quality image than its predecessor.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 7 Mar 2004 12:37:01 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:

>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.  

We are talking about jpeg/jepg2000 here, don't wander off and write
about other, uncompressed, formats.

>
>> 
>>   But JPEG is "broken". 
>
>The p.b.i newsgroup is not broken.  

Pay fucking attention. Did he say that the newsgroup was broken? No he
fucking did not. He said that the format was.

>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.

Stop nannying these people. Let them decide how to deal with it.

>
>
>IMHO, this whole JPEG2000 debate is putting the cart before the horse.  
>First you define the problem, then you develop the solution.  If the 

That's what the fuck happened. JPEG was not up to the job - JPEG2000
was developed as a response.

>problem is "displaying images of >8-bit color depth", then there are more 
>options available besides JPEG2000.  

And none giving good compression rations like JPEG2000 does.

>
>I personally prefer PNG and Open EXR ;)

More power to your elbow, but we are talking jpeg/2000 here.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 17:56:28 +0100, Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde>
wrote:

>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>
>> I for one, for obvious reasons, believe it is a valid format to use
>> for a few reasons:
>
>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.

Well the software I use to make and view JPEG2000 files is free so I
believe it is free.

And who the hell is talking about getting the spec? We are only
interested in the software that results. The implied payment for the
use of the spec is neither here or there - one usually does have to
pay for such usages.

And I believe one of its main proposed uses is for transfer of visual
information across a network. So that does tend to qualify it as an
internet format.

>
>Lutz-Peter

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

Post a reply to this message

On 7 Mar 2004 12:01:06 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> 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?

Teehee. I certainly don't. Where's the money to be made otherwise?

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 18:14:20 +0100, Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde>
wrote:

>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.

Software design by lawyer eh? Dear me.

>
>Lutz-Peter

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:08:24 +0100, "laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr"
<"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr"> wrote:

>> 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.

I believe there is a way, but I'm a Linux virgin so it's unsafe to
trust me on that.

>
>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.

JPEG2000 with lossy compression is by no means perfect, but it does
improve on JPEG.

PNG does indeed give large files and I feel this is maddening because
some of use still use dial-up modems.

>
>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!

The attempt to use 16-bit is definitely fraught with issues, but the
main hope is that the end-user's hardware/software will not introduce
gradient banding when displaying the image.

That's an interesing point though and one I've not really thought
about before. You may very well be right in saying that unless
lossless compression is used, 16-bit is a non-starter. However, I like
to believe that one should give the end-user the best possible intent
and provide a 16-bit image if one is capable of producing it.

>
>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.

But can't you see the chicken-and-egg situation you are creating?

If one does not encourage JPEG2000 useage, one is not going to get
that spread.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:07:43 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>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.  

Hahahaha! Like JPEG is simple. Ever tried reading the standard. Lord
its a mind-poker!

>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? ;-)

Yes, so perhaps its time to stop nannying people and allow them to use
it to improve the appearance of images they post - even ones that are
not, as it were, production-quality.

>
>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

And what has that got to do with anything? Who cares!

>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.

Just because it's complex does not make it not fit for purpose. Fact
of life - in this era of computing complexity is the norm.

Saying something should not be adopted because it is hard is a very
weak argument. How on Earth would we progress as a society if we all
had that altitude?

>
>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).

So you are going stall on this because of more inertia - the lack of
enthusiasm to get it working right, to figure a solution out. You are
going to let a minor thing like that get in the way? So what if the
website will not thumbnail the image? People are capable of
downloading and viewing a separate viewer. Dear me, such little
effort.

>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.

Only because of more inertia. This is all very strange coming from a
graphics community - one that I would have thought would have really
grasped at the chance to use new formats to improve their works.

>
>Thorsten
>
>PS: Wondering why I post in HTML?  Well, everybody has a web browser and

Np, because the subject is JPEG2000. Stick to the subject.

>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! ;-) ;-) ;-)

But since you have indeed wandered off the path:

There's a large majority out there that would strongly disagree with
you. 

Usenet uses a text-based medium (yes, even binaries groups are
ultimately text-based) and should not have to groan under the strain
of unrequired formatting tags when simple text will do.  Again, we see
how "compression" is a better step forwards.

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

Post a reply to this message

> Poor you.

This seems pointless, so here's my closing statement:

I don't feel insulted by someone who goes out wining about his favourite
*new* file-format not being accepted at a newsgroup. "Ease of use" - that's
what standards are for, you know? That's why some comply to them, and others
try to define new ones to introduce advancements. The POV-Ray Newsgroups are
about POV-Ray, not about "new standards in image-storing and showcasing".

Bye,
Tim

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Email: tim.nikias (@) nolights.de

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:16:59 +0000, IMBJR wrote:

> 
> Anyone here willing to discuss the JPEG2000 format and its use in
> these groups?
> 
> I for one, for obvious reasons, believe it is a valid format to use
> for a few reasons:
> 
> 1. Reduction in file size with less loss in image quality. A bonus for
> a news server - esp' one that likes to carry as many of the images
> posted to it as possible.
>

Just use PNG. 

> 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. This perhaps has no bearing on the groups,
> but nether-the-less it is a bonus of the format.

I've never seen consumer level video hardware or displays capable of
displaying more than 8-bit per color.

> 3. Arguably less or less-infringing artifacts. JPEG's artifacts are of
> course terriable, but I think JPEG2000 addresses this in a sensible
> fashion. However, personally, I'm still not sure if what appears to be
> a more blurring type of artifact is the right way to go. How this
> relates to the newsgroups is that of course the groups are not really
> meant for best quality images, but at least the introduction of less
> artifacts shows off the artist's work in a better manner.

Again, just use PNG if your're that concerned about quality, and be done
with any concerns about artifacts once and for all. As a bonus, PNGs are
viewable on anything resembling a modern workstation without additional
software.

Post a reply to this message