"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'?


> 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...
:/


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



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?

>
> >
> >    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.


>
> >
> >   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!

>
> >
> >   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).


>
> 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.

    ~Steve~


 >    imbjr

Post a reply to this message