On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:15:10 -0500, "Ross Litscher"
<rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:


>After just reading this entire thread of 190+ messages, I hesitate to get
>involved in this nonsense. Alas, i dive in...
>
>I don't consider waiting until something it robust, and easily usable a
>technophobe. If that were the case, I would be a technophobe for not keeping
>my linux kernel up to date with the latest experimental patch. It's an "ease
>of use", "out of sight, out of mind" thing, not a fear of new technologies.

JPEG2000 != experimental patch as they say in C++

>
>IBBJR, I do have a question for you that came up in reading the large number
>of posts in this thread. If you are only concerned for the image quality of
>your art to be maintained, not really interested in comments about it, and
>don't care if anyone really sees it (but hope that some people will look at
>it?), and are concerned for bandwidth, why not post to
>povray.binaries.scene-files or povray.text.scene-files? that way, people can
>render your work in the full glory of uncompressed 16 bit images at whatever
>resolution they want. 

An interesting idea for sure. Makes one wonder exactly where the
copyright on the image itself produced lies.

As for giving the code away. I'd rather not. It's not as if it's a
trade secret or I use some very skillful programming, it's just that
it's the means to the end. If I were doing 2D work, it would be like
giving away the Photoshop file, or even the source images and telling
people how to knock them together.

>Additionally, consider you have just text files as
>povray source (i.e., no image maps or other non-text data). 

Quite often I do have image data to consider, as I like the
eval_pigment function a lot.

>A 180kb text
>file could theoretically compress down well below the size of a compressed
>image file, thus saving you the time it takes to upload files to the news
>server. Uploading seems to be your primary concern, because you never wanted
>to force others to post in jpg2000, you just wanted to be allowed to do so.
>Is the assumption of uploading being your concern true? It does however put
>the burden of viewing the image on the shoulders of the other person, but in
>this case, they already have the software (povray) to do so.

My main concern was keeping the intent of the master image as much as
possible. Of course, the image group is not about best quality, but I
like to get close with my 'net-based intent.

>
>by the way, and neither here nor there, i wholey disagree with you on your
>arguments that news.povray.org is part of Usenet. i just had to mention it
>because it was particularly bugging me. along with your argument that the
>Internet came into existence the first time people connected two computers
>together. "internets" and the "Internet" are networks, but not all networks
>(for example, the first two computers ever connected) are internets. i would
>only consider a network to be an internet or part of an internet if it in
>some way used the IP stack. 

That's why I mentioned a transport protocol in one posting. I agree 2
computers together are not the start of the net - but that protocol
was I believe a founding principle.

>Usenet is a system of sharing nntp feeds between
>servers. While news.povray.org runs on nntp, it is not a part of the system
>that shares feeds. not a part of the Usenet system.

Mmm, even a node that is not connects is still a node.

>
>that being said, i need to get home before the laundromat closes and i can'
>t do my laundry goodnight. happy tracing,
>ross
>

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message