 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spam here> wrote:
> Infranview with plugins.
Great. The plugin supports "up to" a whopping 640x480 pixels.
> Yes and that's why if customers shout loud enough, then those other
> OSs will be supported too.
Unlikely, I doubt there is any sigificant market for graphics viewer
utilities even on windows. So I don't think support for jpeg2k will
be brought to other systems by commercial software.
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:38:32 +0100, Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>
>> Infranview with plugins.
>
>Great. The plugin supports "up to" a whopping 640x480 pixels.
Really? Damn, never noticed that limitation. Still that's only one of
ways of doing it.
>
>> Yes and that's why if customers shout loud enough, then those other
>> OSs will be supported too.
>
>Unlikely, I doubt there is any sigificant market for graphics viewer
>utilities even on windows. So I don't think support for jpeg2k will
>be brought to other systems by commercial software.
Mmm, perhaps. But imagine if the camera makers decide to plump for
JPEG2000 then we shall see.
>
>Lutz-Peter
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <404b7a76@news.povray.org> , Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> Unlikely, I doubt there is any sigificant market for graphics viewer
> utilities even on windows. So I don't think support for jpeg2k will
> be brought to other systems by commercial software.
Actually, on Mac OS QuickTime supports it. So in just about any decent Mac
OS newsreader and web browser one can view the image inline. Still, there
is no value added by it being JPEG 2000 and in 16 bits per color component.
Even the most fancy hardware money can buy these days offers more than 10
bit of depth for display. And I don't know about any hardware that uses
more than 12 bit for gamma correction.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <Xns94A591C2033C7tomatimporg@203.29.75.35> , Tom Galvin
<tom### [at] imporg> wrote:
> 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.
BTW, in my post in p.b.i I just pointed out that it is against etiquette,
not against any rule, of these groups. And I did not say posting in any
other format is not allowed or against some rule, just that in the interest
of everybody else, one should always try to post in formats that everybody
can view easily. Doing so is simply more productive.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 20:51:18 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>In article <Xns94A591C2033C7tomatimporg@203.29.75.35> , Tom Galvin
><tom### [at] imporg> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>BTW, in my post in p.b.i I just pointed out that it is against etiquette,
>not against any rule, of these groups. And I did not say posting in any
>other format is not allowed or against some rule, just that in the interest
>of everybody else, one should always try to post in formats that everybody
>can view easily. Doing so is simply more productive.
So are you actually saying I can?
Is so, I wish this had been made clearer.
>
> Thorsten
>
>____________________________________________________
>Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
>e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
>Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 20:48:50 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>In article <404b7a76@news.povray.org> , Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde>
>wrote:
>
>> Unlikely, I doubt there is any sigificant market for graphics viewer
>> utilities even on windows. So I don't think support for jpeg2k will
>> be brought to other systems by commercial software.
>
>Actually, on Mac OS QuickTime supports it. So in just about any decent Mac
>OS newsreader and web browser one can view the image inline. Still, there
>is no value added by it being JPEG 2000 and in 16 bits per color component.
The value is in the better compression.
>Even the most fancy hardware money can buy these days offers more than 10
>bit of depth for display. And I don't know about any hardware that uses
>more than 12 bit for gamma correction.
>
> Thorsten
>
>____________________________________________________
>Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
>e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
>Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <98rm40hhssc2d14g1u8c6fnbfrt1a801u2@4ax.com> , IMBJR
<no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:07:43 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
> <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>>
>>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!
I implemented an encoder a few years ago without any problems. Reading it
is no big deal once one gets used to the fact that the format decoding is
specified, but not the encoding process itself. Of course, to someone
thinking JPEG is complex, JPEG 2000 must appear no different....
>>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
Nobody did.
>>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 you question my "enthusiasm to get [the web news view] working right"?
You are entitled to your opinion, but I really think you just want a flame
war. Probably that is why you posted the image in the first place.
Next time, take such thing to povray.off-topic, not povray.general or p.b.i!
Guess I will have to enable your killfile entry again. Just noticed I had
you in there before, but as you hadn't caused conflict in any groups I read
for a long time, your entry was inactive...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 20:48:50 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
><tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>
>>In article <404b7a76@news.povray.org> , Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Unlikely, I doubt there is any sigificant market for graphics viewer
>>> utilities even on windows. So I don't think support for jpeg2k will
>>> be brought to other systems by commercial software.
>>
>>Actually, on Mac OS QuickTime supports it. So in just about any decent Mac
>>OS newsreader and web browser one can view the image inline. Still, there
>>is no value added by it being JPEG 2000 and in 16 bits per color component.
>
> The value is in the better compression.
And the 640x480 filesize limitation imposed by your favorite plugin!
Oh, wait...
-Eamon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in
news:tvtm40pt8c6r6paljai9n8ucpkqre48epm@4ax.com:
>
> Don't be so ignorant. Re-read the thread. See what we are writing
> about.
>
Follow your own advice. Others have made the same points I have.
JPEG200 was proposed as a solution. Alternative solutions have been
proposed. Each one has trade-offs for size, speed, quality and
compatibility.
"WE" have broadened the discussion.
>
> I'm seeing if it can be changed now.
If you haven't already realized, it is not going to happen "Now".
Continuing this line of argument is pointless. If you want to discuss
possible timelines for support, or alternative avenues of investigation
then that is a different matter.
>
> 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.
>
You need to read the Acceptable use Policy of this server. A short
excerpt follows.
Users of this news server may not post messages that could
reasonably be expected, by today's standards, to cause another
reasonable person to not want to use or visit this server due
to a feeling of harassment. Personal attacks, exhibiting
insulting or abusive behavior, are not an acceptable activity
on this news server. Likewise, the use of profanity is also
considered unacceptable.
>
> 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?
>
A productive one. Debate on the merits of an argument with consideration
to opposing viewpoints. Granting the benefit of the doubt, and asking
for clarification.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 15:12:33 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in
>news:tvtm40pt8c6r6paljai9n8ucpkqre48epm@4ax.com:
>
>
>>
>> Don't be so ignorant. Re-read the thread. See what we are writing
>> about.
>>
>
>Follow your own advice. Others have made the same points I have.
>JPEG200 was proposed as a solution. Alternative solutions have been
>proposed. Each one has trade-offs for size, speed, quality and
>compatibility.
Well, duh.
>
>"WE" have broadened the discussion.
>
>>
>> I'm seeing if it can be changed now.
>
>If you haven't already realized, it is not going to happen "Now".
Think again, buddy. Looks like it was not a rule after all. Keep up.
>Continuing this line of argument is pointless. If you want to discuss
>possible timelines for support, or alternative avenues of investigation
>then that is a different matter.
I shall continue so long as others continue, not when you think I
should stop.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>You need to read the Acceptable use Policy of this server. A short
>excerpt follows.
>
> Users of this news server may not post messages that could
> reasonably be expected, by today's standards, to cause another
> reasonable person to not want to use or visit this server due
> to a feeling of harassment. Personal attacks, exhibiting
> insulting or abusive behavior, are not an acceptable activity
> on this news server. Likewise, the use of profanity is also
> considered unacceptable.
And what has that got to do with image formats? Are you implying an
image format is like a personal attack for example?
>
>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
>A productive one. Debate on the merits of an argument with consideration
>to opposing viewpoints. Granting the benefit of the doubt, and asking
>for clarification.
I wish that was the case here, but you get people mangling your images
and trying to waylay the point you get what you deserve.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
