IMBJR wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:20:26 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> > Well I feel sorry for you if you think differently, but the English
> > dictionary *defines* English words.  How could you possibly argue
> > with the dictionary?  Do you have your own version of English?
>
> No, don't be silly. A dictionary is NOT to be used for a tool in a
> discussion on the meaning of terms because it cannot do the term
> justics.

Oh just grow up, the dictionary says that one meaning of "community" is a
group of people sharing an interest.  You are saying it's not (even though
I've given you an example (scientific community).  Now which one do you
think is correct?

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:26:34 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
> > IMBJR wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, I think if people can't see it using their normal methods for
> > viewing images then that counts as them not being able to see it.
> > It's pointless trying to expect them to do anything different -
> > most people won't.
>
> Don't make such bold assumptions as to how many will. Try not to think
> of you as an example of how others will react.

Out of most people I know I think I am at the top end of using new
technologies out of all of them, thus I have no reason not to think that in
general most people won't bother installing or know how to install special
software for J2K.

> > > 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.
> >
> > So, what % of people do you think are going to downgrade your image
> > to 8-bit before viewing it?  Ummm, I think that would be >99% :-)
>
> LOL Keep up.
> There's more than just 16-bit JPEG2000 images available from me down.

That sentance doesn't really make sense, but I don't understand how a 16-bit
image can be any better than an 8-bit image when displayed through 8-bit
DACs.  Please explain.

> Your obsession with actual figures is worrying. It's as if you have
> some higher knowledge of what takes place here. But you do not.

You're just scared of the figures.  You also seem incapable of answering
questions.  Please estimate what % of people will downgrade your image to
8-bit before viewing it.  I think it's quite high, what do you think?

> > > 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.
> >
> > yeah, they've learnt that it isn't worth using at the moment!
>
> Don't be silly. Re-read what people have been saying. Some have
> actually made the effort to learn more and try and use the software.

Indeed, and I'm one of the "some".  However the benefit of a slightly
smaller file size (or slightly worse compression) is not enough to spend 10
times longer opening each image.  When people can view J2K images just as
quickly as normal JPEGs, there will be no problem.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:37:21 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:20:26 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> > Well I feel sorry for you if you think differently, but the English
>> > dictionary *defines* English words.  How could you possibly argue
>> > with the dictionary?  Do you have your own version of English?
>>
>> No, don't be silly. A dictionary is NOT to be used for a tool in a
>> discussion on the meaning of terms because it cannot do the term
>> justics.
>
>Oh just grow up, the dictionary says that one meaning of "community" is a
>group of people sharing an interest.  You are saying it's not (even though
>I've given you an example (scientific community).  Now which one do you
>think is correct?

No you for sure. Don't use a dictionary - it shows you are not
thinking about the matter at hand.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:49:22 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:26:34 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>>
>> > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > 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.
>> >
>> > Well, I think if people can't see it using their normal methods for
>> > viewing images then that counts as them not being able to see it.
>> > It's pointless trying to expect them to do anything different -
>> > most people won't.
>>
>> Don't make such bold assumptions as to how many will. Try not to think
>> of you as an example of how others will react.
>
>Out of most people I know I think I am at the top end of using new
>technologies out of all of them, thus I have no reason not to think that in
>general most people won't bother installing or know how to install special
>software for J2K.
>
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > So, what % of people do you think are going to downgrade your image
>> > to 8-bit before viewing it?  Ummm, I think that would be >99% :-)
>>
>> LOL Keep up.
>> There's more than just 16-bit JPEG2000 images available from me down.
>
>That sentance doesn't really make sense, 

Dear me. Look on the images group and you will see.

>but I don't understand how a 16-bit
>image can be any better than an 8-bit image when displayed through 8-bit
>DACs.  Please explain.

This has already been covered. If you can't keep up, don't bother.

>
>> Your obsession with actual figures is worrying. It's as if you have
>> some higher knowledge of what takes place here. But you do not.
>
>You're just scared of the figures. 

They do not exist for a start.

> You also seem incapable of answering
>questions.  Please estimate what % of people will downgrade your image to
>8-bit before viewing it.  I think it's quite high, what do you think?

Again, you are worrying to much about actual numbers.

>
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > yeah, they've learnt that it isn't worth using at the moment!
>>
>> Don't be silly. Re-read what people have been saying. Some have
>> actually made the effort to learn more and try and use the software.
>
>Indeed, and I'm one of the "some".  However the benefit of a slightly
>smaller file size (or slightly worse compression) is not enough to spend 10
>times longer opening each image.  When people can view J2K images just as
>quickly as normal JPEGs, there will be no problem.

Yadda yadda.

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

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:37:21 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
> > IMBJR wrote:
> > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:20:26 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> > > > Well I feel sorry for you if you think differently, but the
> > > > English dictionary *defines* English words.  How could you
> > > > possibly argue with the dictionary?  Do you have your own
> > > > version of English?
> > >
> > > No, don't be silly. A dictionary is NOT to be used for a tool in a
> > > discussion on the meaning of terms because it cannot do the term
> > > justics.
> >
> > Oh just grow up, the dictionary says that one meaning of
> > "community" is a group of people sharing an interest.  You are
> > saying it's not (even though I've given you an example (scientific
> > community).  Now which one do you think is correct?
>
> No you for sure.

What does this mean?

> Don't use a dictionary - it shows you are not
> thinking about the matter at hand.

LOL I think it just shows you're not thinking :-)

Is English your first language?  I've noticed in quite a lot of your posts
sentances either don't make sense or there are a lot of errors.  I doubt
anyone would take advice on the meaning of words from someone who can't even
demonstrate a basic understanding of sentance construction!

Oh well, I've wasted enough time already, clearly you think your English is
superior to the dictionary, so there's not much more I can say!  Cya!

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:49:22 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
> > IMBJR wrote:
> > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:26:34 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMBJR wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I think if people can't see it using their normal methods
> > > > for viewing images then that counts as them not being able to
> > > > see it. It's pointless trying to expect them to do anything
> > > > different - most people won't.
> > >
> > > Don't make such bold assumptions as to how many will. Try not to
> > > think of you as an example of how others will react.
> >
> > Out of most people I know I think I am at the top end of using new
> > technologies out of all of them, thus I have no reason not to think
> > that in general most people won't bother installing or know how to
> > install special software for J2K.
> >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > So, what % of people do you think are going to downgrade your
> > > > image to 8-bit before viewing it?  Ummm, I think that would be
> > > > >99% :-)
> > >
> > > LOL Keep up.
> > > There's more than just 16-bit JPEG2000 images available from me
> > > down.
> >
> > That sentance doesn't really make sense,
>
> Dear me. Look on the images group and you will see.

I meant your sentance doesn't make sense.  In particular the "...available
from me down." bit!

> > but I don't understand how a 16-bit
> > image can be any better than an 8-bit image when displayed through
> > 8-bit DACs.  Please explain.
>
> This has already been covered. If you can't keep up, don't bother.

Yeah I thought it had too!

> > > Your obsession with actual figures is worrying. It's as if you
> > > have some higher knowledge of what takes place here. But you do
> > > not.
> >
> > You're just scared of the figures.
>
> They do not exist for a start.

You're full of silly comments, of course they do, it's just *you* don't know
what the figure is.  Hence I asked you to *estimate*!

> > You also seem incapable of answering
> > questions.  Please estimate what % of people will downgrade your
> > image to 8-bit before viewing it.  I think it's quite high, what do
> > you think?
>
> Again, you are worrying to much about actual numbers.

Please estimate what % of people will downgrade your image to 8-bit before
viewing it.

> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > yeah, they've learnt that it isn't worth using at the moment!
> > >
> > > Don't be silly. Re-read what people have been saying. Some have
> > > actually made the effort to learn more and try and use the
> > > software.
> >
> > Indeed, and I'm one of the "some".  However the benefit of a
> > slightly smaller file size (or slightly worse compression) is not
> > enough to spend 10 times longer opening each image.  When people
> > can view J2K images just as quickly as normal JPEGs, there will be
> > no problem.
>
> Yadda yadda.

Look, if you're not even going answer any questions or comments I put to
you, what's the point in you posting?  I wasn't sure to start with, but
quite clearly you are just trolling.  I'd rather spend my time debating with
people who respond to my views.  Plonk!

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:25:28 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:37:21 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>>
>> > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:20:26 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> > > > Well I feel sorry for you if you think differently, but the
>> > > > English dictionary *defines* English words.  How could you
>> > > > possibly argue with the dictionary?  Do you have your own
>> > > > version of English?
>> > >
>> > > No, don't be silly. A dictionary is NOT to be used for a tool in a
>> > > discussion on the meaning of terms because it cannot do the term
>> > > justics.
>> >
>> > Oh just grow up, the dictionary says that one meaning of
>> > "community" is a group of people sharing an interest.  You are
>> > saying it's not (even though I've given you an example (scientific
>> > community).  Now which one do you think is correct?
>>
>> No you for sure.
>
>What does this mean?

LOL You really are clueless!

>
>> Don't use a dictionary - it shows you are not
>> thinking about the matter at hand.
>
>LOL I think it just shows you're not thinking :-)

Parroting me is not the answer.

>
>Is English your first language?  I've noticed in quite a lot of your posts
>sentances either don't make sense or there are a lot of errors. 

Ah, the redoubt of the hopelessly lost in an argument. Picking up on
the other person's writing is a sure fire indication that someone's
wandered so far off the plot there will no hope of sensible debate in
the future.

> I doubt
>anyone would take advice on the meaning of words from someone who can't even
>demonstrate a basic understanding of sentance construction!

See? Can't be bothered to follow the debate properly, so goes for
rather tiresome attacks of this nature.

>
>Oh well, I've wasted enough time already, clearly you think your English is
>superior to the dictionary, so there's not much more I can say!  Cya!

Indeed, there's very little you can write that doesn't sound lile you
have lost the debate conclusively.

>

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:31:17 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:49:22 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>>
>> > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:26:34 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > 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.
>> > > >
>> > > > Well, I think if people can't see it using their normal methods
>> > > > for viewing images then that counts as them not being able to
>> > > > see it. It's pointless trying to expect them to do anything
>> > > > different - most people won't.
>> > >
>> > > Don't make such bold assumptions as to how many will. Try not to
>> > > think of you as an example of how others will react.
>> >
>> > Out of most people I know I think I am at the top end of using new
>> > technologies out of all of them, thus I have no reason not to think
>> > that in general most people won't bother installing or know how to
>> > install special software for J2K.
>> >
>> > > > > 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.
>> > > >
>> > > > So, what % of people do you think are going to downgrade your
>> > > > image to 8-bit before viewing it?  Ummm, I think that would be
>> > > > >99% :-)
>> > >
>> > > LOL Keep up.
>> > > There's more than just 16-bit JPEG2000 images available from me
>> > > down.
>> >
>> > That sentance doesn't really make sense,
>>
>> Dear me. Look on the images group and you will see.
>
>I meant your sentance doesn't make sense.  In particular the "...available
>from me down." bit!

Look do I have to spell it out for you? Are you really struggling with
this? Well tough.

>
>> > but I don't understand how a 16-bit
>> > image can be any better than an 8-bit image when displayed through
>> > 8-bit DACs.  Please explain.
>>
>> This has already been covered. If you can't keep up, don't bother.
>
>Yeah I thought it had too!

When why are you going around in circles?

>
>> > > Your obsession with actual figures is worrying. It's as if you
>> > > have some higher knowledge of what takes place here. But you do
>> > > not.
>> >
>> > You're just scared of the figures.
>>
>> They do not exist for a start.
>
>You're full of silly comments, of course they do, it's just *you* don't know
>what the figure is.  Hence I asked you to *estimate*!

Estimates are bad guesses. I will have no truck with anything that
smacks of statistics. Real figures yes, stats no.

>
>> > You also seem incapable of answering
>> > questions.  Please estimate what % of people will downgrade your
>> > image to 8-bit before viewing it.  I think it's quite high, what do
>> > you think?
>>
>> Again, you are worrying to much about actual numbers.
>
>Please estimate what % of people will downgrade your image to 8-bit before
>viewing it.

Stop worrying about numbers.

>
>> > > > > 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.
>> > > >
>> > > > yeah, they've learnt that it isn't worth using at the moment!
>> > >
>> > > Don't be silly. Re-read what people have been saying. Some have
>> > > actually made the effort to learn more and try and use the
>> > > software.
>> >
>> > Indeed, and I'm one of the "some".  However the benefit of a
>> > slightly smaller file size (or slightly worse compression) is not
>> > enough to spend 10 times longer opening each image.  When people
>> > can view J2K images just as quickly as normal JPEGs, there will be
>> > no problem.
>>
>> Yadda yadda.
>
>Look, if you're not even going answer any questions or comments I put to
>you, what's the point in you posting?  

I could ask the same about you.

>I wasn't sure to start with, but
>quite clearly you are just trolling.  I'd rather spend my time debating with
>people who respond to my views.  Plonk!

Not sure? 

Really, you must surely know the difference between a true troll and
someone who knows what they are writing about.

>

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

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> writes:

> > 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?

I didn't do anything special. The PNG was already very small before
pngcrush, I guess that it was due to the large areas with little color
variation.

-- 
http://arose.hopto.org

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:3pc950t92ar64ggh79thv9r8jbrjg0f281@4ax.com...

<some trash>

I'm gonna take the advice of one of the wise ones,

"Never argue with a fool, bystanders can't tell you apart".

Plonk!

Post a reply to this message