 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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.
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.
Any comments?
Personally, as I said, I would really like to see this format accepted
for use in the image group. It seems that the arguments against it are
mainly related to people's inertia to install the required software,
but that personally smacks of laziness and allows the major software
vendors to sit on their hands. If you sit still, you are going to find
yourself more and more in difficulty trying to deal with what the rest
of the graphics community is up to.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Anyone here willing to discuss the JPEG2000 format and its use in
> these groups?
It's simple: the JPEG2000 format isn't integrated in many newsreader, e.g.
Outlook doesn't understand it. AFAIK the JPEG2000 posted in binaries.images
wasn't viewable by many frequenters of these groups, and requiring IrfanView
with some update or some other app to view the image isn't really nice. But
it's not up to me, but to the Administrators.
My position would be: I won't be able to view the image "off the shelf", so
I'll most likely not see the images and thus won't be able to comment on
them. That aside, the newsgroups aren't meant to be a personal gallery with
100% accurate images, but rather a presentation platform from which you can
get comments and critique. If you want to really showcase the images, put
them on your website for download, and place a nice jpeg here. People
interested may still get the better version to comment on that. That's my
opinion.
> Personally, as I said, I would really like to see this format accepted
> for use in the image group. It seems that the arguments against it are
> mainly related to people's inertia to install the required software,
> but that personally smacks of laziness and allows the major software
> vendors to sit on their hands. If you sit still, you are going to find
> yourself more and more in difficulty trying to deal with what the rest
> of the graphics community is up to.
Well, my Internet Explorer doesn't show JPEG2000 either. And I'm not willing
to download every JPEG2000 image I find to view them with some image-app.
And I'm not so sure about "the rest of graphics community": I'm a frequent
visitor at the CGTalk Forums, and they're still using jpeg, and I haven't
heard of many people there being really annoyed by jpeg. Course, every now
and then there's a "with jpeg, some details get lost", but then they just
post another close-up.
Look at it this way: you want comments? Then supply the image so that people
may easily view them. You can't expect much when you're requiring people to
do "work" for free (downloading, starting the app, looking at the image).
But, as I said, it's up to the admins here.
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Email: tim.nikias (@) nolights.de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> Anyone here willing to discuss the JPEG2000 format
> and its use in these groups?
Sure.
> 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.
Yes, the better quality/size ratio is a bonus.
> 2. Representation of 16-bit colour depth.
> but at least the 16-bit intent is preserved.
What good is intent if it has no practical application? I don't care
much for a higher color depth that I can't see even if the "intent is
preserved".
> 3. Arguably less or less-infringing artifacts.
Isn't that just reason 1) repeated? You already addressed the
quality/size ratio there, and reason 3) seems to be the same just with
some different words and a little more information.
> Any comments?
Yes. Here are my reasons against:
con-1) Installing the required software is not always an option if
you're at a school or workplace where you're not supposed to install
software.
con-2) Even if the required software is installed, it's still cumbersome
having to open the image in the viewer to be able to see it rather than
just to see it inside ones newsreader. You may call it laziness, but
then I prefer being lazy.
con-3) The web-view of the newsgroups also won't be able to show the
images. This re-enforces both argument con-1 and con-2 as they also
apply to the web-view of the newsgroups. Besides that, the web-view now
also show small previews of attached images, which is very convenient,
but which would also not work with JPEG2000.
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 in news:d1bm40hmv75jeiuj3cp3v1382aon91bpk9@
4ax.com:
> 1. Reduction in file size with less loss in image quality.
That's what PNG is for.
> 2. Representation of 16-bit colour depth.
That's what PNG is for.
> 3. Arguably less or less-infringing artifacts.
That's what PNG is for.
> It seems that the arguments against it are
> mainly related to people's inertia to install the required software,
Yup. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> but that personally smacks of laziness
Or prudence. Adding new software is a crap shoot, even on linux and Mac
systems.
> and allows the major software vendors to sit on their hands.
The market decides what they do.
> If you sit still,
in respect to JPEG2000?
> you are going to find
> yourself more and more in difficulty trying to deal with what the rest
> of the graphics community is up to.
>
That's an opinion.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:34:47 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim.nikias (@)
nolights.de> wrote:
>> Anyone here willing to discuss the JPEG2000 format and its use in
>> these groups?
>
>It's simple: the JPEG2000 format isn't integrated in many newsreader, e.g.
>Outlook doesn't understand it. AFAIK the JPEG2000 posted in binaries.images
>wasn't viewable by many frequenters of these groups, and requiring IrfanView
>with some update or some other app to view the image isn't really nice. But
>it's not up to me, but to the Administrators.
Seems more of an excuse than a reason. Remember, you need software to
view so-called regular images too. Why let the big vendors determine
what you can and cannot so-called conveniently see?
>
>My position would be: I won't be able to view the image "off the shelf", so
>I'll most likely not see the images and thus won't be able to comment on
>them. That aside, the newsgroups aren't meant to be a personal gallery with
>100% accurate images, but rather a presentation platform from which you can
>get comments and critique. If you want to really showcase the images, put
>them on your website for download, and place a nice jpeg here. People
>interested may still get the better version to comment on that. That's my
>opinion.
Except, that's not what I was about. There was no attempt to post a
best-off, merely an attempt to retain 16-bit colour depth and minimise
artifacts with what is now freely available to all.
>
>> Personally, as I said, I would really like to see this format accepted
>> for use in the image group. It seems that the arguments against it are
>> mainly related to people's inertia to install the required software,
>> but that personally smacks of laziness and allows the major software
>> vendors to sit on their hands. If you sit still, you are going to find
>> yourself more and more in difficulty trying to deal with what the rest
>> of the graphics community is up to.
>
>Well, my Internet Explorer doesn't show JPEG2000 either. And I'm not willing
>to download every JPEG2000 image I find to view them with some image-app.
>And I'm not so sure about "the rest of graphics community": I'm a frequent
>visitor at the CGTalk Forums, and they're still using jpeg, and I haven't
>heard of many people there being really annoyed by jpeg. Course, every now
>and then there's a "with jpeg, some details get lost", but then they just
>post another close-up.
This a web forum, I guess? This of course means they are ham-strung
somewhat by Microsoft as to what will display without so-called
effort. Pity, people let such vendors decide for them what's so-called
easy to digest.
>
>Look at it this way: you want comments? Then supply the image so that people
No, if I wanted comments I would have asked for them. Anyone who
comments is merely commenting off their own bat. I post merely because
I've a POV-Ray image to post. Comments are merely a side-effect of
that.
>may easily view them. You can't expect much when you're requiring people to
>do "work" for free (downloading, starting the app, looking at the image).
>But, as I said, it's up to the admins here.
"Work"? Dear me, that really does make people sound incredibly lazy.
As for the admins, surely it's in their interest to at least appear to
be up-to-date with modern graphics developments and allow JPEG2000 to
be posted. Sticking ones head in the sand is just going to make this
community look backwards-thinking.
>
>Regards,
>Tim
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:42:59 +0100, "Rune" <run### [at] runevisioncom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> Anyone here willing to discuss the JPEG2000 format
>> and its use in these groups?
>
>Sure.
>
>> 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.
>
>Yes, the better quality/size ratio is a bonus.
>
>> 2. Representation of 16-bit colour depth.
>
>> but at least the 16-bit intent is preserved.
>
>What good is intent if it has no practical application? I don't care
>much for a higher color depth that I can't see even if the "intent is
>preserved".
You actually do see it, because there will be less risk of colour
banding.
>
>> 3. Arguably less or less-infringing artifacts.
>
>Isn't that just reason 1) repeated? You already addressed the
>quality/size ratio there, and reason 3) seems to be the same just with
>some different words and a little more information.
Perhaps, but this is not an essay writing contest. Critiquing the form
of the argument is not entering into the spirit of rational debate as
you appeared to imply you would at the start of your reply. With that
paragraph of yours above, you now appear to be looking for excuses to
dismiss the argument instead of considering it.
>
>> Any comments?
>
>Yes. Here are my reasons against:
>
>con-1) Installing the required software is not always an option if
>you're at a school or workplace where you're not supposed to install
>software.
This is perfectly true, but how applicable is it to the POV-Ray
community in general. I've no idea.
>
>con-2) Even if the required software is installed, it's still cumbersome
>having to open the image in the viewer to be able to see it rather than
>just to see it inside ones newsreader. You may call it laziness, but
>then I prefer being lazy.
Still lazy. There's no excuse for it. People thinking that software
will save them effort is a big mistake. I work in the software
industry and know all too well that one form of toil has merely been
transformed into another. If one is not prepared to make an effort,
one does not get the result.
>
>con-3) The web-view of the newsgroups also won't be able to show the
>images. This re-enforces both argument con-1 and con-2 as they also
>apply to the web-view of the newsgroups.
Just because one view of the newsgroup is badly affected does not mean
one has to throw in the towel. Again, effort has its own rewards.
>Besides that, the web-view now
>also show small previews of attached images, which is very convenient,
>but which would also not work with JPEG2000.
>
>Rune
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 10:29:31 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in news:d1bm40hmv75jeiuj3cp3v1382aon91bpk9@
>4ax.com:
>
>> 1. Reduction in file size with less loss in image quality.
>
>That's what PNG is for.
PNG just does not cut it when performing compression to the extent
that JPEG/JPEG2000 can.
>
>> 2. Representation of 16-bit colour depth.
>
>That's what PNG is for.
And it's not well supported by many of the big vendor either.
>
>> 3. Arguably less or less-infringing artifacts.
>
>That's what PNG is for.
But at the expense of large files.
>
>> It seems that the arguments against it are
>> mainly related to people's inertia to install the required software,
>
>Yup. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It is broke. Currently one has to tolerate bad artifacting and the
possibility that banding may occur in the image.
>
>> but that personally smacks of laziness
>
>Or prudence. Adding new software is a crap shoot, even on linux and Mac
>systems.
Again, without effort there is no reward. Arguing not to do it because
ones system is potentually flaking is really lazy.
>
>> and allows the major software vendors to sit on their hands.
>
>The market decides what they do.
Dear me, how the meak hath spoken. The customer should decide what is
what.
>
>
>> If you sit still,
>
>in respect to JPEG2000?
>
>> you are going to find
>> yourself more and more in difficulty trying to deal with what the rest
>> of the graphics community is up to.
>>
>
>That's an opinion.
Well, fucking duh. Like to point out the sky is blue?
Try actually responding sensibly to my opinion instead of merely
pointing out that it is one. Or can't you think of a better set of
arguments to defend your obviously lazy position?
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in news:afhm40de9d1agdf7cbsenivvrdidf5b73s@
4ax.com:
>>
>>That's an opinion.
>
> Well, fucking duh. Like to point out the sky is blue?
>
> Try actually responding sensibly to my opinion instead of merely
> pointing out that it is one. Or can't you think of a better set of
> arguments to defend your obviously lazy position?
>
Was I disrespectful? You certainly crossed the line, and not just in this
post. The vehemence of your responses in these threads has presented
opinion as self-evident fact. Forgive me for trying a gentle reminder. If
you are the only person pushing for JPEG2000 you may want to examine the
logic of incorporating them on these groups at this time.
My arguments for PNG have an advantage in that they are already and
accepted on these newsgroups as the preferred method for displaying images
with out loss of quality.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:
> > 1. Reduction in file size with less loss in image quality.
> That's what PNG is for.
How does PNG help to reduce file sizes compared to JPEG?
In only very few cases a PNG will be smaller than a good-quality JPEG.
In most cases the JPEG will be 5-10 times smaller. And the JPEG2000 even
smaller than that.
> Yup. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But JPEG is "broken". It causes files to be larger and have less
quality than would be necessary. You demonstrably can have smaller
file sizes with better image quality. Thus JPEG is not optimal
and thus "broken". A fix has its place.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> I for one, for obvious reasons, believe it is a valid format to use
> for a few reasons:
I believe it is not, because AFAIK it is not free (you have to pay to
get the specification), and there may be patent issues.
IMO that disqualifies it as an internet file format.
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
