Let me know if you need some programmers to start browbeating them. Often
companies won't admit problems unless you get on them with people who know what
they're doing. Then again, some companies just don't care.

--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.





Sander wrote:

> The score is now 14 sent and 13 received emails: I think I'll hang on for a
> little while yet. If they are not reacting positively, I will do as you
> rightly suggest.
> Thanks for caring,
> --
> Regards,
> Sander
>
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 388e0e34@news.povray.org...
> > In article <388e0314@news.povray.org> , "Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote:
> > Well, the PNGLib (which POV-Ray uses) is the sample implementation of the
> > PNG standard (not exactly, but practically).  It is the product every
> other
> > program has to measure its PNG support at.
> > And if their code locks up their system it is obviously their program
> > crashing ... but for them it is of course easy and logical to reject the
> > blame in that case, they wrote the program ;-)  The best solution is
> > probably to use another program, if they don't think it is their problem -
> > and they are then unlikely to fix it soon :-(
> >
> >
> >       Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

It means POV can't see it's own partial renders, that's what  :^)
Which in turn means the PngLib isn't up to par either, I guess.

 8^[

Anyhow, I think the output isn't going to matter far as reading it afterward
goes because the lack of a termination part isn't preventing readable files in
other programs.  It must be the "decode", as it were, at fault.
Like I know anything I'm talking about.  Get me out of here!

Bob

"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message news:388eb526@news.povray.org...
| This infamous 64-byte PNG doesn't open in POV-Ray using your code, giving
| the output "Error reading PNG image". A regular PNG behaves correctly. What
| can I deduce from this?
|

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:11:01 -0600, "Bob Hughes"
<omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:

>There are several other file types I've seen opened even if a partial render the
>POV-Ray is apt to do.  Bmp, Tga, Png, have usually been okay like I said before
>except for a image program or two I used to use.  Even corrupted Jpg files will
>open (most of the time).  Have you tried any other file formats, Sander, in
>ACDSee (bmp, tga at least)?  That would narrow it down to the Png part alone.
>
>Bob

From the docs:

"* Support for most popular image formats - BMP, DCX, EMF, GIF
(including animation), IFF, JPEG, KDC, PCD, PCX, PIC, PIX, PNG, PSD,
SGI, TGA, TIFF (including multi-page and 12/16-bit samples) and WMF"

It can also convert to Jpeg, BMP, PCX (including Truecolor) and TIFF.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:05qOOKKDi9StpK1fvi3XjbWbf0gJ@4ax.com...
| It can also convert to Jpeg, BMP, PCX (including Truecolor) and TIFF.

Convert those only and not Png files?  Maybe that's the key, Png write.  What a
wild guess though.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

In article <388f428d@news.povray.org> , "Bob Hughes" 
<omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:

> It means POV can't see it's own partial renders, that's what  :^)
> Which in turn means the PngLib isn't up to par either, I guess.

No, you misunderstand something here: The image is empty, so there is no
partial render done yet. Only the last pass of mosaic preview renders is
actually written to a file, the rest is thrown away (but the image file is
opened when mosaic preview is started).  So LibPNG is perfectly fine.


     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

Thanks for the offer. Should I send you a copy of the e-mail dialogue, or
would that be a breach of something? You could get an idea of how they react
to my complaints, that way. I am *not* a programmer...

--
Regards,
Sander


Jon A. Cruz <jon### [at] geocitiescom> schreef in berichtnieuws
388### [at] geocitiescom...
> Let me know if you need some programmers to start browbeating them. Often
> companies won't admit problems unless you get on them with people who know
what
> they're doing. Then again, some companies just don't care.
>
> --
> "My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
> But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.
>

Post a reply to this message

>I am *not* a programmer...

Right, and I'm not a POVer... ;)

Post a reply to this message

Jon A. Cruz <jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote in <MsgID-suppressed>:

>Let me know if you need some programmers to start browbeating them.
>Often companies won't admit problems unless you get on them with people
>who know what they're doing. Then again, some companies just don't
>care. 

Good good good attitude. I'd like to take you up on that. That's a realy good 
point. I have been struggling solo with the company that produces my registered 
software ThumbsPlus 4, which has a fatal PNG-writing bug in its latest build 
on Win32 (see http://catalpa88.tripod.com/ThumbsBug.html for info on that). 
They say they'll have that fixed for the nest release -- but that doesn't 
address all the old code that they haven't worked on (apparently) for years, 
that doesn't support PNGs (especially color-mapped ones).

If any readers care to go read my page and especially if any use ThumbsPlus, 
please write to the folks at sup### [at] ceriouscom and ceriously ask them (g) to 
pay some cerious attention (ggg) to PNG in their popular application, for a 
change.

  TIA,
     soren andersen

-- 
Using PNG-format images as Web BACKGROUNDs without
"breaking your Site" for silly older browsers:
http://www.wonderstorm.com/techstuff/
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post a reply to this message

Sander <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in <MsgID-suppressed>:

>Thanks for the offer. Should I send you a copy of the e-mail dialogue, or
>would that be a breach of something? You could get an idea of how they react
>to my complaints, that way. I am *not* a programmer...

Since you asked ..

It would be a serious breach if you posted their replies publically without 
getting prior consent from them. [Treating people as human beings with respect 
is priority number one when you are trying to get someone to listen to you .. 
and that --respect-- is what Netiquette is basically about. But see below.]

Copying the messages to one personal friend is another matter. Lawyers can 
differ (and can go to h___). Common sense: send such communications only 
privately to a person who shares your concerns about an issue; you've been 
corresponding with a *company* (representatives thereof) in their official 
capacity. This relaxes some of the stringency of ethical dictates concerning 
priviledged communications IMO.

If a company representative is abusive to you, all bets are off -- post their 
stuff to public fora freely. THAT's a public service.

  My humble opin,
     soren andersen

-- 
Using PNG-format images as Web BACKGROUNDs without
"breaking your Site" for silly older browsers:
http://www.wonderstorm.com/techstuff/
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post a reply to this message

[This followup was posted to povray.windows and a copy was sent to the 
cited author.]

In article <8F78B0EC4soren2000j@news.povray.org>, 
sor### [at] noYOUknowWHATjunocom says...

> Since you asked ..
> 
> It would be a serious breach if you posted their replies publically without 
> getting prior consent from them. [Treating people as human beings with respect 
> is priority number one when you are trying to get someone to listen to you .. 
> and that --respect-- is what Netiquette is basically about. But see below.]
> 
> Copying the messages to one personal friend is another matter. Lawyers can 
> differ (and can go to h___). Common sense: send such communications only 
> privately to a person who shares your concerns about an issue; you've been 
> corresponding with a *company* (representatives thereof) in their official 
> capacity. This relaxes some of the stringency of ethical dictates concerning 
> priviledged communications IMO.
> 
> If a company representative is abusive to you, all bets are off -- post their 
> stuff to public fora freely. THAT's a public service.

Hi, are you in the know about those 64-byte PNG's? I still have them and 
they still freeze my ACDSee viewer. There has not been a definitive 
recognition of the problem by the makers of ACDSee. But I can live with 
them...

-- 
----------------
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message