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