On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:32:12 +0200, "Severi Salminen"
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:

>> >Sorry to inform you, but when I want high quality graphics, I use 4800 X
>> >3200 bitmaps.
>>
>> What the fuck does the dimensions of an image have anything to do with
>> image formats?
>>
>> As for 'bitmap', what the fuck does that mean? Are we talking TIFF,
>> BMP, PNG, what? Be more precise otherwise you are just coming off as a
>> more pointless member of the POV police chorus.
>
>Calm down, no need to get that pissed off. You posted an image in a format

I get pissed off by the stupid isolationist backward thinking that
obviously takes place here.

>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.

>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. 

>You can
>preserve the 16-bit output of POV-Ray even without posting the same image
>_here_ - just take the whopping few seconds to convert it. And again: 16-bit
>serves (at the present) no purpose other than for editing as most current
>videocards can't show more than 8bits/pixel. You will see the same kind of
>gradation no matter which format (8 or 16 bits). But I guess you allready
>knew this...

This is not necessarily so. Reading the fucking thread and you will
see. Bloody hell, why do you people insist on jumping into a thread
without reading all of what's available first?

To repeat:

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.

>
>Severi S.

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

Post a reply to this message