 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spam here> wrote:
> Well the software I use to make and view JPEG2000 files is free so I
> believe it is free.
What software is that? In what sense of "free"?
A free (of charge) win32 binary is of no use to users of other
operating systems.
> And who the hell is talking about getting the spec?
If the spec isn't free there won't be many implementations,
wich means it is more likely that people "can't see it"(TM).
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:47:55 +0200, Severi Salminen
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> Anyone here willing to discuss the JPEG2000 format and its use in
>> these groups?
>
>I also think that JPEG2000 should not be used in these groups until
>there are newsreaders that have more or less integrated support for the
>format.
Forte Agent by those standards is therefore well regressive, yet it is
looked upon with some favour by many.
>You can call it lazyness, I don't care, but the usage of an
>external program for image viewing in these groups is very inconvenient,
Yes, I will call it laziness. There's no such thing as a free lunch in
software. Get used to it.
>awkward and slow - compared to inline viewing of JPEG images. At least
>OE and Thunderbird don't support it - I'm not even sure if JPEG2000
>licence permits a (free) plugin for Mozilla/Thunderbird (anyone know?).
Well infranview has a free plugin and I've used another free plugin
for generation of these images. Even if the thing were not free, so
what? Again, there's no such thing as a free software lunch.
>I found no information that Opera or Forte Agent would have the support.
>There are of course zillion other readers on both Win and other
>platforms but the above are the more common ones. But if and when the
>support becomes common I favor the usage of JPEG2000 also in these groups.
Chicken and egg. "Let's wait and see" instead of "Let's be making this
work".
>
>And _even_ if the decoder did automatically dither (I don't know if they
>usually do) the 16-bit image to reduce banding it would still be of
>little advantage when the majority of images posted in new.povray are so
>small the the banding is usually not even visible. And sometimes a
There are always counter-examples I'm sure. So that's a pointless
statement.
>dithered image looks even worse than the one with slight banding. But of
>course, Jpeg2000 has other merits more important than being 16-bit.
Indeed. Pity you people seem to have decided to forego them.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 12:57:26 -0500, ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>in news:d1bm40hmv75jeiuj3cp3v1382aon91bpk9@4ax.com IMBJR wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Just wondering, what does Irfanview do to 6 bit jpeg200 images. Does it
>show it as a 16 bit image or does it downsample it? Most software does
>for 16 bit png's.
Wish I knew. I've never actually tested this. It would be a pity if
the majority downsampled. Dithering at least would be a more honest
attempt at rendering the intent of the format.
>
>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 still maintain that they would help in reducing gradient-banding -
but that really does depend on the end viewer. At least the intent is
there though. If it is there then perhaps at a future date, the image
can be better viewed. Mind, this might not be a very good argument
because, let's face it, lossy compression is already throwing things
away.
>
>16 bit images are nice for photographic printing on slide material as
>they can show a bigger contrast range. 16 bit images are nice as an
>intermediate format between rendering and showing on screen as an 8 bit
>image. It gives you the possibility to control contrast a lot better by
>converting to 8 / 12 / whatever bit images using a controlable transfer
>function. In this regard, search for some of Kari Kivisalo's work on
>this newsserver.
>
>If the intent is preservation of the original, I would not use any lossy
>compression.
Indeed. I'm beginning to suspect that this might actually be the case.
>
>'Pushing' towards a "standard" or even a new format in these greedy
>times, knowing that there are patent issues i.m.o. is a folly of the
>jpeg committee.
>
>In general, I don't care in what format an image or animation is posted.
>If I can't see it, so be it.
I agree.
>
>Ingo
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:50:36 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim.nikias (@)
nolights.de> wrote:
>> Poor you.
>
>This seems pointless, so here's my closing statement:
Poor poor you.
>
>I don't feel insulted by someone who goes out wining about his favourite
>*new* file-format not being accepted at a newsgroup.
Mine? I think you will find I have nothing to do with the JPEG people.
And it is not my favourite. I use TIFF for archive purposes - if
that's an indication of favouritism so be it.
>"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.
Ease of use in standards? - oh, boy, are you ever way off the mark. I
work in the software industry and the numerous standards I come into
contact with certainly do not feature ease of use as their main drive.
>The POV-Ray Newsgroups are
>about POV-Ray, not about "new standards in image-storing and showcasing".
Never said that that should be the case. All I am merely asking for is
the ability to use the format. let people look after themselves and
their preferences in terms of what to do about the formats they
encounter - do not nanny them.
>
>Bye,
>Tim
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:53:46 +0100, Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>
>> Well the software I use to make and view JPEG2000 files is free so I
>> believe it is free.
>
>What software is that? In what sense of "free"?
Infranview with plugins.
>A free (of charge) win32 binary is of no use to users of other
>operating systems.
Yes and that's why if customers shout loud enough, then those other
OSs will be supported too. If vendors see the format being used, they
will have to take note.
>
>> And who the hell is talking about getting the spec?
>
>If the spec isn't free there won't be many implementations,
>wich means it is more likely that people "can't see it"(TM).
There are plenty of people out there willing to pay - it's called
commercial software. Open-source is merely just another way.
>
>Lutz-Peter
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:56:01 -0500, Tyler Eaves <tyl### [at] NOSPAMml1net>
wrote:
>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.
PNG is still bulky compared with JPEG/JPEG2000.
>
>> 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.
Never said there were.
>
>> 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.
File size is for me the major blocker to using PNG. I access the net
via dial-up modem, so for me JPEG is a preferred solution - JPEG2000
perhaps more so.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz-Peter Hooge wrote:
> 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.
Unless SCO buys one of the bits...*snicker*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in
news:72qm40ho4heokncnp2jbp1q5i0knh7gk1o@4ax.com:
>
> More power to your elbow, but we are talking jpeg/2000 here.
>
Evidently the royal "We". You have already been informed by one of the
admins that jpeg2000 is not "currently" an approved format. That may
change in the future. Get over it. There is another option currently
available to you that will display your images in all their glory. Use it
or don't. In the meantime, don't expect approval for breaking the rules.
I am not defending the act of conversion to jpeg that was done on your
image. I think you overreacted, and let your emotion cloud your judgement,
when reponding to others. I am no stranger to profanity. I just find it
tiresome when used by amateurs indiscriminately to poor effect. If you
wish to see an example of the creative use of profanity, may I reccomend
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/
I won't killfile you because I disagree with you. You have in the past
made wonderful contributions to the community. Sadly, your current tirade
adds little, and only harms yourself. A little common courtesy goes a long
way.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just wondering, what does Irfanview do to 6 bit jpeg200 images. Does it
> show it as a 16 bit image or does it downsample it? Most software does
> for 16 bit png's.
>
Well, it's just a guess, but, given that the window managers (X-window,
Windows, ...) work with at most 32 bit displays (8 bits red, 8 bits
green, 8 bits blue, 8 bits alpha) and even if that wasn't the case, the
gfx-cards ARE limited to 32 bits displays (read the specs...), 16 bits
per component for display is useless! All displays are down sampled or
dithered to 8 bits per component.
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...
Regards,
--
Laurent ARTAUD (lau### [at] freefr)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 14:19:44 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in
>news:72qm40ho4heokncnp2jbp1q5i0knh7gk1o@4ax.com:
>
>
>>
>> More power to your elbow, but we are talking jpeg/2000 here.
>>
>
>Evidently the royal "We".
Don't be so ignorant. Re-read the thread. See what we are writing
about.
>You have already been informed by one of the
>admins that jpeg2000 is not "currently" an approved format.
So that is why we are discussing the issue here to see if that
"ruling" can be changed.
I know this is not a democracy, but are you people so narrow-minded as
to be unable to take another point of view?
>That may
>change in the future. Get over it.
I'm seeing if it can be changed now. This is the first attempt at
discussing this. This is what we do in a democracy, we discuss. I
know, as I said, this venus ain't a democracy - but is is a discussion
newsgroup. So we discuss.
>There is another option currently
>available to you that will display your images in all their glory. Use it
>or don't. In the meantime, don't expect approval for breaking the rules.
Who said I was breaking the rules? PAY ATTENTION.
I posted a JPEG2000 file once and was told not to do so again. This I
have complied with.
>
>I am not defending the act of conversion to jpeg that was done on your
>image. I think you overreacted, and let your emotion cloud your judgement,
I think you will find my arguments are still sound. Just because you
don't like a little edge to someone's way of writing does not mean
they do not have a valid point of view.
>when reponding to others. I am no stranger to profanity. I just find it
>tiresome when used by amateurs indiscriminately to poor effect.
So there are professional swearers here are they? What the fuck are
you talking about? Nonsense is what.
>If you
>wish to see an example of the creative use of profanity, may I reccomend
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/
I am not here to be creative, I am here to argue a point. Where the
fuck you get the idea that one has to be creative in order to do that
I do not know. I suspect you have merely run out of valid
counter-arguments to my proposal and are now using the usual
usenet-time-wasting-argument aproach.
>
>I won't killfile you because I disagree with you.
Whoopie. Like I fucking care. In fact I wish you would so I don't have
to read your pointless arguments again.
> You have in the past
>made wonderful contributions to the community. Sadly, your current tirade
>adds little, and only harms yourself. A little common courtesy goes a long
>way.
Again, where on Earth do you get the idea that we must all be
fluffy-puppy with one another? What kind of debating system is that?
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
