"Artis Rozentals" <art### [at] aaaapollolv> wrote in message
news:m27### [at] aaaapollolv...
> 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.

Never heard of pngcrush before, I just d/l'd & tried it out on a 2.3meg
jpeg.  The conversion done by ms paint resulted in a 13meg file, so far it
looks like pngcrush can get it to about 7megs.  How did you get it to
compress an image so well?

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:50:08 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>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!

???

No, really, using a dictionary as your source is bad form.

>
>>>> 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?)

Again, dictionary usage in such cases is bad form. I know someone who
does this all the time at work and he eventually realises that his
dictionary is not giving him the full picture.

>
>>>> 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.

Well, obviously.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:19:03 -0800, "Chambers"
<bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>"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?

Newsgroups.

>
>> places of shared entertainment,
>
>What do you call these forums?

Newsgroups.

>
>> support networks,
>
>What do you call these forums?

Newsgroups.

>
>> 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 :)

These are in addition to the community as it exists in "meatspace",
but they are not a community in and of themselve.


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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:45:43 -0600, "GreyBeard"
<r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet> wrote:

>
>"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?

Plenty of people do and for many reasons of their own devising. It
happens.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:24:16 -0800, "Chambers"
<bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>"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.  

Only if one stays in the traditional field, but there are many who
want to distribute their photos or generally improve/change them.

>Using chemical prints, you can blow up negatives
>even 100x at a very high quality, all without any digital equipment.  

I know. I got myself an all-purpose scanner that has a little gizmo
for negatives. Of course, perhaps, one should have got a dedicated
negatives scanner for that, but I needed a scanner for other uses as
well.

>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.

But there's where the fun stops. It continues once we step into the
digital world.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:31:18 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> JPEG2000 != experimental patch as they say in C++
>
>Given the number of broken implementations of it, it certainly seems 
>like an early version of a C++ compiler. ;-)

Ah, cackle.

>
>> An interesting idea for sure. Makes one wonder exactly where the
>> copyright on the image itself produced lies.
>
>Obviously the image would be a derivative work of the scene file.

Mmm, reallly? When I posed that question I think the answer I was
expecting was almost a "duh, it's obvious - you are still the owner". 

Blimey, I wish it was easier to determine someone's thought processes
behind their postings. This is another reason I don;t think of this as
community. There's very much lost in the subtles of communication
here.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>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.

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.

>
>>> 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.

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.

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.


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

Post a reply to this message

Dear IMBJR,

I though my previous post was to be the last.
Well, it isn't. For the reason at the bottom of this mail.

There are also some things that I forgot to mention in this
discussion until now.

First, some of the images I made over the last decade
have turned into covers of books (mainly dutch thesis but
also one pocket). I have always been astounded by the
liberty the 'art' department of the printers take with
my material. I can tell you that it is much worse than
conversion of an image from JPEG2000 into JPEG. I have
never lost my temper over this, so I have no understanding
at all for your reaction in that respect.

>>>
>>>You obviously are missing the full context. I suggest you re-read the
>>>thread and you will see this did not appear out-of-the-blue.
>>
>>Sorry to disappoint you, the world is a better place than you
>>think it is.
>  
> Try telling that to the Palestinians, the Chechians, the this the
> that. 
Often in your reactions to other people you give the impression
that you just react to something without any consideration to
the context as if you have an attention span of less than a single
sentence. Which is strange because you referred me to the context
in the reaction before. This remark in itself is in the context
silly at best (I think it is rude, but that is not the point here).

> Sorry. No doughnut.
Duh, apparently some sort of slang that I do not know of.
Could be related to 'Close, but no cigar', but something
like that does not make sense in the context.
>>>Strange how you did not get the replies you wanted though, isn't it?
>>
>>No, and I do not understand this remark. It feels as if you
>>try to imply that I wanted you react in a certain way. 
>  
> Your feelings do not betray you.
> 
Which proves I think that you do _read_ but are unable to
_understand_ what I say. Seldom had that problem before, so
I guess it is you.

> Perhaps for you, but I live in the real world.
Strange, I had the idea that I was also living in the
real world, but if you think otherwise, I reconsider.

> Yawn. That is like teaching of the sucking of the eggs.
Another of those incomprehensible sayings. I have no
clue at all what it means.

> Tee-hee!
What is that supposed to mean?

Second major point here: at least three incomprehensible
responses from you. All probably related to some form
of slang or local sayings that I am not aware of.
I just want to take the opportunity to support al those
that have told you again and again, that this is a
NG with a very mixed group of users. Apart from the
things explicitly mentioned in the AUP there are also
a number of rules to obey that have simply to do with
what is called 'nettiquete' or basic minimal requirements
for decent conduct in the community. So in case you did
not pick it up yet: only use language the receiving
party can understand. In most cases that means
simple sentences, no difficult words outside
of the topic of the news group and definitely no
slang. Basically texts that even a french girl or a
japanese boy with only a couple years of training in
english can understand.

Third: also mentioned before, and I just want to support it
 >>> Please, put me in your killfile and be done with it.
which you have used to a number of people here in the group.
IMHO this is a clear violation of the AUP.

Finally at last, the reason why I wanted to write one
more letter. I have been thinking very hard on this and
finally reached a conclusion. Reading you mails is
no pleasure at all (and as you yourself made clear that
is also one of the purposes of them). So I either had
to stop reading these NGs or had to change the settings
of my news reader. It will probably come as no surprise
that I decided for the latter. I activated a couple
of filters to delete everything you send before I
get a chance to see it. I though it was decent to at least
inform you of this. I have to do it for every NG
separately and did not do it for all the groups yet.
They are activated for this group however, so even
if you reply (which I am sure you will. I would not even
be surprised if you had started your reply before
even coming to this point), I will never see it.
Today has been already one of the more pleasant
days in the last two weeks reading the news.

I have no doubt that in ten or twenty years time you
will finally understand what I and many others have
been trying to tell you and be embarrassed with
yourself. I hope to meet you again whenever that happens,

	Andrel

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:ap4450hf21kev8g9fhkmj1ges36c450tuu@4ax.com...
> >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.
>
> But there's where the fun stops. It continues once we step into the
> digital world.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
<sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos
> and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up to 100 times
> the normal photograph size.

This post, which sparked the sub-thread, is clearly referring to an analog
(ie non-digital) method.  That's why referrence to a scanner was
unnecessary; the scanner would never be a part of the process, and the image
would never be converted to a digital format.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:25:26 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Dear IMBJR,
>
>I though my previous post was to be the last.
>Well, it isn't. For the reason at the bottom of this mail.
>
>There are also some things that I forgot to mention in this
>discussion until now.
>
>First, some of the images I made over the last decade
>have turned into covers of books (mainly dutch thesis but
>also one pocket). I have always been astounded by the
>liberty the 'art' department of the printers take with
>my material. I can tell you that it is much worse than
>conversion of an image from JPEG2000 into JPEG. I have
>never lost my temper over this, so I have no understanding
>at all for your reaction in that respect.

You surprise me, but then again I'm perhaps not surprised. From what
I've heard about commercial printing - it's no surprise your intent is
ruined.

>> Try telling that to the Palestinians, the Chechians, the this the
>> that. 
>Often in your reactions to other people you give the impression
>that you just react to something without any consideration to
>the context as if you have an attention span of less than a single
>sentence. Which is strange because you referred me to the context
>in the reaction before. This remark in itself is in the context
>silly at best (I think it is rude, but that is not the point here).

Definately not the point. As for context, again this shows us why this
place is no community  - it has very poor sense of context.

>
>> Sorry. No doughnut.
>Duh, apparently some sort of slang that I do not know of.

Are you seriously telling me you've never heard this expression. Well,
perhaps English is not your native language. Oh well.

>Could be related to 'Close, but no cigar', but something

Yes, that's the doughnut!

>like that does not make sense in the context.

Oh well, perhaps it is difficult to impact my meaning if your idioms
are not up to scratch.

>>>>Strange how you did not get the replies you wanted though, isn't it?
>>>
>>>No, and I do not understand this remark. It feels as if you
>>>try to imply that I wanted you react in a certain way. 
>>  
>> Your feelings do not betray you.
>> 
>Which proves I think that you do _read_ but are unable to
>_understand_ what I say. Seldom had that problem before, so
>I guess it is you.

No. It's both of us. Be more precise. Digging at someone without
realising that you can also see yourself in the mirror is not going to
get your points accepted.

>
>> Perhaps for you, but I live in the real world.
>Strange, I had the idea that I was also living in the
>real world, but if you think otherwise, I reconsider.

Thank you.

>
>> Yawn. That is like teaching of the sucking of the eggs.
>Another of those incomprehensible sayings. I have no
>clue at all what it means.

More idiom: you were trying to teach me something that is
self-evident.

>
>> Tee-hee!
>What is that supposed to mean?

You do not understand written laughter?

>
>Second major point here: at least three incomprehensible
>responses from you. 

Don't blame me or yourself. It's obvious I should not have used
Enlgish idioms that you do not understand.

>All probably related to some form
>of slang or local sayings that I am not aware of.
>I just want to take the opportunity to support al those
>that have told you again and again, that this is a
>NG with a very mixed group of users. Apart from the
>things explicitly mentioned in the AUP there are also
>a number of rules to obey that have simply to do with
>what is called 'nettiquete' or basic minimal requirements
>for decent conduct in the community. So in case you did
>not pick it up yet: only use language the receiving
>party can understand. 

The trouble with that is that I am unfamilar with your personal
education and culture. Another nail in the coffin of thinking this
place is a community. We all have quite different life outlooks due to
our national differences.

>In most cases that means
>simple sentences, no difficult words outside
>of the topic of the news group and definitely no
>slang. Basically texts that even a french girl or a
>japanese boy with only a couple years of training in
>english can understand.

Dear me, you really want this place that bland. Bang goes any in-depth
conversation then. Goodbye philosophy on off-topic. Good-bye technical
banter on the technical groups.

>
>Third: also mentioned before, and I just want to support it
> >>> Please, put me in your killfile and be done with it.
>which you have used to a number of people here in the group.
>IMHO this is a clear violation of the AUP.

I'm not sure it is. Apparently asking people to leave is, but asking
people to ignore oneself I really don't see as a breach. No one else
has mentioned this. Any help on this, admin, or those who breath the
AUP?

>
>Finally at last, the reason why I wanted to write one
>more letter. I have been thinking very hard on this and
>finally reached a conclusion. Reading you mails is
>no pleasure at all (and as you yourself made clear that
>is also one of the purposes of them). 

Pardon? I think you really should have quoted me on that. Such a
statement does not gell with the way I look at it.

>So I either had
>to stop reading these NGs or had to change the settings
>of my news reader. It will probably come as no surprise
>that I decided for the latter. I activated a couple
>of filters to delete everything you send before I
>get a chance to see it.

So you took my advice after all. Good for you.

> I though it was decent to at least
>inform you of this. I have to do it for every NG
>separately and did not do it for all the groups yet.
>They are activated for this group however, so even
>if you reply (which I am sure you will. I would not even
>be surprised if you had started your reply before
>even coming to this point), I will never see it.
>Today has been already one of the more pleasant
>days in the last two weeks reading the news.

Glad to hear it. 

>
>I have no doubt that in ten or twenty years time you
>will finally understand what I and many others have
>been trying to tell you and be embarrassed with
>yourself. I hope to meet you again whenever that happens,

That's just plain weird. You really think this place has that level of
significance? After that time period, I doubt I'll even remember
dealing with the folks on this group.

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

Post a reply to this message