 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> Well you certainly seemed to have not kept
> the fuck up that's for sure. Keep up.
Things are not always like they seem.
>>> You've so sharp ... yadda, yadda.
>>
>> I have sharp yadda yadda? Whatever.
>
> Yeah. Get to a doctor. Or get them blunted.
I already did long ago. Keep up.
>>> Pointless too - what a paradox in your head.
>>
>> Really? I love paradoxes!
>
> Look into my eye ...
I looked into your eye and beyond, but there was nothing to be found.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spam here> wrote:
> 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?
Sorry, my list of software you use was apparently out-of-date. Also,
which socks were you wearing last Wednesday? I can't find it in my
records.
-Eamon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 22:25:00 +0100, "Rune" <run### [at] runevisioncom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> Well you certainly seemed to have not kept
>> the fuck up that's for sure. Keep up.
>
>Things are not always like they seem.
>
>>>> You've so sharp ... yadda, yadda.
>>>
>>> I have sharp yadda yadda? Whatever.
>>
>> Yeah. Get to a doctor. Or get them blunted.
>
>I already did long ago. Keep up.
Well I can't watch you 24-7.
>
>>>> Pointless too - what a paradox in your head.
>>>
>>> Really? I love paradoxes!
>>
>> Look into my eye ...
>
>I looked into your eye and beyond, but there was nothing to be found.
That's because you looked beyond. Esp' if you do that from your
current view you will merely see the nothingness that's inherent in
this place.
>
>Rune
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:31:09 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
>> It's simple: the JPEG2000 format isn't integrated in many newsreader,
>
>And apparently it's a sufficiently difficult format to get right that
>even commercial software does a halfway job of doing it right. The
>commercial program I have that claims to read and write jpeg2000 images
>showed me yours in greyscale.
Yup, sounds like it may not support 16-bit.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:38:48 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
> > get over it and listen to the arguments instead of
>> finding yet more execuses to not bother with them.
>
>This is very common. "You disagree with me, hence you must not
>understand what I'm saying." It is quite possible that everyone
>understands exactly what you're saying and nevertheless continues to
>disagree with your conclusion. It's not the case that people here
>disagreeing are not listening.
No. Re-read, you will find these people were coming up with uprelated
crap - no actual counter-argument. They were not "listening".
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> 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.
One acronym comes clearly to my mind: GIF.
Do I have to say more?
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 16:30:39 -0500, Eamon Caddigan <eca### [at] uiucedu>
wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Sorry, my list of software you use was apparently out-of-date. Also,
>which socks were you wearing last Wednesday? I can't find it in my
>records.
Such childish rejoiners point to someone who is as lazy as the rest of
the people here and cannot find the correct counter-arguments so they
go off-track.
>
>-Eamon
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:53:17 +0000, IMBJR wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:38:48 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> wrote:
>
>>IMBJR wrote:
>> > get over it and listen to the arguments instead of
>>> finding yet more execuses to not bother with them.
>>
>>This is very common. "You disagree with me, hence you must not
>>understand what I'm saying." It is quite possible that everyone
>>understands exactly what you're saying and nevertheless continues to
>>disagree with your conclusion. It's not the case that people here
>>disagreeing are not listening.
>
> No. Re-read, you will find these people were coming up with uprelated
> crap - no actual counter-argument. They were not "listening".
>
> --------------------------------
> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
> http://www.imbjr.com
The fact that it's a royal pain and the ass to track something down to
view the images with (Quite possibly IMPOSSIBLE on my platform) isn't a
valid counter-argument?
That's like saying the fact that you live in a state that for some reason
doesn't have any has stations that sell diesel isn't a valid argument for
not buying a diesel-engined vehicle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> 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?
When you descend to insults, profanity, and fail to address in any
serious way the arguments against your preferred solution, it stops
being a serious debate and starts being a flame war.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA USA (PST)
I am in geocentric orbit, supported by
a quantum photon exchange drive....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:51:50 -0500, Tyler Eaves <tyl### [at] NOSPAMml1net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:53:17 +0000, IMBJR wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:38:48 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>IMBJR wrote:
>>> > get over it and listen to the arguments instead of
>>>> finding yet more execuses to not bother with them.
>>>
>>>This is very common. "You disagree with me, hence you must not
>>>understand what I'm saying." It is quite possible that everyone
>>>understands exactly what you're saying and nevertheless continues to
>>>disagree with your conclusion. It's not the case that people here
>>>disagreeing are not listening.
>>
>> No. Re-read, you will find these people were coming up with uprelated
>> crap - no actual counter-argument. They were not "listening".
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
>> http://www.imbjr.com
>
>The fact that it's a royal pain and the ass to track something down to
>view the images with (Quite possibly IMPOSSIBLE on my platform) isn't a
>valid counter-argument?
Well that's unfortunate. Perhaps there will always be some who will be
left behind. You could always develop your own if you so desire.
>
>That's like saying the fact that you live in a state that for some reason
>doesn't have any has stations that sell diesel isn't a valid argument for
>not buying a diesel-engined vehicle.
Your argument is of course completely dumb - such a scenario does not
exist. It's hard to take seriously someone who would use such a
comparison. Esp', in your case - you cannot empirically say for sure
that JPEG2000 is supported by your platform, unless that platform is
unique to you and if it is then more fool you.
Looks like you drew the short straw when they were handing out OSs
then.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
