 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <gl0n40t9o8bc9njg5jier55887mfki1kud@4ax.com> , IMBJR
<no### [at] spam here> wrote:
>>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?
The question is not if you can, but if you should! You _can_ also go to
your boss and call him an idiot...
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in
news:404b7d37$1@news.povray.org:
>
> 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
>
I stand corrected. Thanks Thorsten
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:11:43 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>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....
Kudos to you for that. I've considered it, but it really looked like a
particular hill this software engineer could not climb without
spending too much time that could be spent with one's "art".
>
>>>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.
Quoting something as either a rule or etiquette is nannying.
>
>>>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.
Don't be so silly. How the fuck does posting a new format and then
trying to get a serious debate going about it make for a a flame war?
If you see dissent as flames, then you have a major problem.
That's the problem with this entire news server. There's an air of
stagnation and isolationism about it. No-one seems capable of airing
any view that rankles with what might be termed the "elders".
>
>Next time, take such thing to povray.off-topic, not povray.general or p.b.i!
Perhaps this venue is not the best, but off-topic just seems full of
pointless discussion to begin with. This issue is a little more
in-depth to entrust to that place.
>
>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...
Go on then. Hide under your rock.
I shall, after wall, be continuing to post JPEG2000 images from now
on, since there is actually no actual hard-fast rule preventing me
from doing so - but you'lll miss them. Good for you.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 15:12:16 -0500, Eamon Caddigan <eca### [at] uiucedu>
wrote:
>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!
It's not my favourite, it's a suggestion. I use Photoshop. Lordy, why
don't you try to keep up?
>
>Oh, wait...
>
>-Eamon
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> IMBJR wrote:
>> So are you actually saying I can?
>
> The question is not if you can, but if you should!
I think he might have a different opinion about what "the question"
is...
> You _can_ also go to your boss and call him an idiot...
...or post images to p.b.i without any interest in getting feedback or
even if other people can see the images. I expect that we'll be seeing
quite some more JPEG2000 images there now - oops, "seeing" was not a
well chosen word... ;)
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision: http://runevision.com **updated Jan 29**
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:17:40 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>In article <gl0n40t9o8bc9njg5jier55887mfki1kud@4ax.com> , IMBJR
><no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>
>>>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?
>
>The question is not if you can, but if you should! You _can_ also go to
>your boss and call him an idiot...
Fine. I shall call him an idiot. And I shall continue to post as I see
fit.
>
> 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, 7 Mar 2004 21:27:50 +0100, "Rune" <run### [at] runevisioncom>
wrote:
>Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> IMBJR wrote:
>>> So are you actually saying I can?
>>
>> The question is not if you can, but if you should!
>
>I think he might have a different opinion about what "the question"
>is...
>
>> You _can_ also go to your boss and call him an idiot...
>
>...or post images to p.b.i without any interest in getting feedback or
Keep the fuck up. Did I not say elsewhere that if I wanted comments I
would ask for them? I post them because I have something to post. This
is a POV-Ray newserver is it not? I wish to let people look at my work
if they so wish, I don't expect or require comments.
>even if other people can see the images. I expect that we'll be seeing
>quite some more JPEG2000 images there now - oops, "seeing" was not a
>well chosen word... ;)
You've so sharp ... yadda, yadda. Pointless too - what a paradox in
your head.
>
>Rune
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think that the best way of adopting a format is using it. JPEG2000 is not
a closed proprietary format we should avoid. I think we should embrace it.
I agree it is still not very usable, but I also remember struggling with
JPGs ten years ago. My computer was so slow displaying them! GIFs displayed
quickly but breaking the 256-colors barrier was blissful.
About one year ago, some very important french researcher came to my
university to talk about mathematics behind the JPEG2000 format. I can't
remember much, but I remember that the demos were stunning.
JPEG2000 use will skyrocket the day IE supports it.
Fernando
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:36:27 -0600, "Fernando G. del Cueto"
<fcu### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>I think that the best way of adopting a format is using it. JPEG2000 is not
>a closed proprietary format we should avoid. I think we should embrace it.
Indeed. This breaks the chicken-and-egg scenario.
>
>I agree it is still not very usable, but I also remember struggling with
>JPGs ten years ago. My computer was so slow displaying them! GIFs displayed
>quickly but breaking the 256-colors barrier was blissful.
Indeed. People here really need to get off their arses and stop
wallowing in the past.
>
>About one year ago, some very important french researcher came to my
>university to talk about mathematics behind the JPEG2000 format. I can't
>remember much, but I remember that the demos were stunning.
>
>JPEG2000 use will skyrocket the day IE supports it.
One hopes that day is soon - tho personally I only touch MSIE at work.
Can't stand to use it otherwise.
>
>Fernando
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
>> ...or post images to p.b.i without any interest
>> in getting feedback or
>
> Keep the fuck up. Did I not say elsewhere that if
> I wanted comments I would ask for them?
Yes exactly. And on several occasions you did not ask for comments, so
that would make my statement correct. How the fuck is that not keeping
the fuck up?
> I post them because I have something to post. This
> is a POV-Ray newserver is it not? I wish to let
> people look at my work if they so wish, I don't
> expect or require comments.
Good for you.
>> even if other people can see the images. I expect
>> that we'll be seeing quite some more JPEG2000
>> images there now - oops, "seeing" was not a well
>> chosen word... ;)
>
> You've so sharp ... yadda, yadda.
I have sharp yadda yadda? Whatever.
> Pointless too - what a paradox in your head.
Really? I love paradoxes!
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision: http://runevision.com **updated Jan 29**
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
