On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 23:10:03 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:ef3n405huo2hlu7qjh3lsmiu5a0g85r3b1@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:34:46 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>> news:b84m40190ke3kt3boa6ahlgft6inp0bfpd@4ax.com...
>
>>  I get pissed off by the stupid isolationist backward thinking
>> that obviously takes place here.
>
>
>
>> I don't believe for one minute that any of the guys and girls here
>*wouldn't want* a
>> better file format to show others their images.
>>
>> Judging by the lazy attitudes I'm getting I beg to differ.
>
>    Well, I understand that people use their workstations/Mac's/PC's
>so much differently to ourselves with their own workload, that, yes,
>the word 'lazy' can be introduced there. I can certainly understand
>that. I'm the same. I reply to about 5-10 emails a day on our
>commercial site, and those in turn *can* result in around 30-40 emails
>a day - back and forth, back and forth... I hate it, I'm a designer,
>not a secretary. My relaxation of an evening is clicking a few images
>and viewing them, not trying to find/open them. Can you see that side
>of it 'for now'?

I certainly can. There are aspects of what you describe which I apply
to my work. However, I tend to prefer a more "active" approach to my
browsing. Sometimes though that actually means I can't get to sleep as
my mind is still switch on!

>
>
>> Hey, most of the time, I don't even see an artifact, so PNG or
>JPEG2000 is useless to me!
>>
>> You must look closer, they are there I promise you.
>
>   Yeah, sure, I *do* know that from what I've read in the groups, but
>I'm also colour-blind and wear fairly strong glasses. These glasses
>are around 15 years old, so I really should get another eye test, and
>perhaps I'll be able to see these artifacts then... Maybe.  My bad...

Ah, I see. Have you ever magnified an image digitally? Then you will
what are talking about.

>:/
>
>
> The whole crux of this is that you should have presented your
>argument in a much better way, present your argument and ask
>something

Well, as I've already stated - this was never about arguing for the
use of JPEG2000. I merely posted an image in that format because
that's the format I thought best represented what I needed to achieve.
The advocacy came later after the rather odd responses I got to the
posting.

>> >like, "I'm trying this JPEG2000 format, I think it's better and we
>> >should at least have a look at it - what do you guys think? Can
>anyone
>> >download it?"
>>
>> I posted an image
>
> No, to most users, you posted a 'file' that most users couldn't view
>as instantly as they wanted.

See above - ah, looks like I might be repeating myself in this thread.
Oh well.

>
>
>
>and mainly all I got was grief and some cheeky
>> person mangling it. I wasn't even posting it to advocate JPEG2000 -
>> but that's how it ended. I was merely doing it to preserve the
>16-bit
>> output of the POV scene (though that may now be pointless after at
>> least some sensible discussion om the subject), but also to minimise
>> the artifacts.
>
> Could you show the rest of us these artifacts? Were they *that bad*
>using .jpg?

I posted a comparison image. It should still be on the server. They
were certainly noticable and not want I intended at all.

>
>>
>> >
>> >    You would have then had the honest answers that you required
>and
>> >could have moved on further to perhaps complete that goal somehow,
>> >perhaps with support from someone in these groups.
>>
>> No, my posting just revealed a lot of lazy people with fixed views.
>
>   No, your posting just aggravated people that wanted to see your
>image instantly - like you've always done it - with .jpg format.

In this case, it had to be JPEG2000, there were 16-bit colour and
artifact issues that needed addressing. Though now it seems that the
16-bit aspect of all of this may be pointless as the ability of
hardware to support this may be lacking, plus there's the possibility
that lossy compression does not help when used with 16-bit.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >   Personally, I think your work is fantastic and wish that you
>would
>> >post more often, it's not *my* poving style, but nevertheless, I
>> >always wonder how you do such images - you have a great talent
>there.
>>
>> Cheers. Considering that don't use POV much that's a kind comment.
>
>    You don't use Pov much? Heh, you could have fooled me!

No, it's true. I mainly use Bryce and Poser. I only use POV when I
have a procedural effect in mind - one that really could do with
scripting to help it into being.

>
>>
>> >
>> >   KIS. Keep It Simple. I think we're all FOR moving forwards, but
>> >let's take it one step at a time eh...?
>>
>> Believe you me, I would have thought that was just a single step.
>
>    And so it should be. But, the file JPEG2000 speaks for itself
>imo -
>the year 2000, that's a long time ago now. Someone, somewhere, missed
>the boat IMO...   :/   (Please, correct me if I'm wrong with this
>anology).

I'm not sure. I think there are a number of various standards for
different things out there that bear oldish looking dates. However,
it's the implementation wake that follows that is important - I think
we are about to get the full swell of that soon.

>
>
>>
>> Anyway, this is all moot. It seems that it actually acceptable to
>post
>> such images. So where I feel it is required, I will.
>
> Well, I've downloaded the latest release of Irfanview and its plugins
>a couple of days ago, so post away. It really doesn't bother me. I'll
>make the time and look forward to seeing them.

Cheers.

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

Post a reply to this message