> >that only a very small minority can view by default - are you surprised
of
> >the feedback?
>
> I've had better feedback in other places, including those where I'm
> not exactly flavour of the month. This place however is full of ery
> backwards looking people.

This place is full of people who want to see the attachment directly with
their news reader software without the need to install plugins, open
external applications etc. It is called convenience. I agree with you that I
also would like people to adopt new and better technologies faster but
simetimes you have to settle to what software vendors decide. I can also say
that this is not the place to try to "encourage" people for it (because of
what Thorsten said) and also: being polite would be a _lot_ more efficient
way to do it...

> >The format is of course technically superior to JPEG, nobody
> >can deny that, but the purpose of this group is probably to share
pictures
> >with others, not to be an archive of best possible quality images.
>
> That JPEG2000 image was not supposed to be a best-quality picture. For
> that I would have posted the archived TIFF. JPEG2000 with lossless
> compression is still not going to pass for best quality.

Are you comparing 16-bit TIFF to 16-bit lossless JPEG2000? How can there be
a difference between image quality of those two?

> One is definately at the mercy of the receiving machine and its
> software, but how that combination chooses to render a 16-bit image is
> unknown. Indeed it could just "posterise" it and re-introduce gradient
> banding or it could perhaps apply a dithering to simulate the original
> colour depth.

If you think dithered image looks better than banded, then why didn't you
post a dithered JPEG in the first place? And since the  "Preservation of the
output of POV-Ray is the point" you also could have posted the source code
for the scene: people could have seen it, rendered it to best fit their
hardware etc. Don't even bother to answer, I lost my interest. I just hope
you'll post using only JPEG in the future, until most newsreaders support
JPEG2000 decoding. Thanks, take care.

Severi S:

Post a reply to this message