In article <39edd11b@news.povray.org>, "Greg M. Johnson" 
<"gregj;-()"@aol.c;-()om> wrote:

> Shouldn't we simply tell those with the archaic readers simply to 
> upgrade to Win2000 and Netscape or MSIE?? That is in essence what we 
> say when someone cannot read a bleeding edge video format.

I upgraded from Netscape Navigator to MT-NewsWatcher...which is 
definitely not "archaic". Navigator was too big, slow, and buggy. I 
tried Outlook Express...it is no longer on my machine, enough said.
I am definitely not going to get Win2000...that would mean replacing all 
my software and nearly all my hardware, downgrading to an OS that I 
consider inferior, and that software you mentioned will run on Macs.
And besides, they not only are unreadable by many newsreaders, but they 
take up more server space, which is in limited supply.


> I would argue for a common courtesy codec for posting images and 
> videos as well.

For images: I think it has generally been agreed that JPEG format images 
are the best choice, and small PNG's or GIF's are acceptable if JPEG 
compression hurts the image.
For movies, it probably would be a good idea in theory to set some sort 
of standard...but actually choosing one would be difficult, some people 
probably wouldn't be able to create them, and you would be leaving out 
any new, possibly better formats. New movie codecs and formats seem to 
appear far more often than new image formats...

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message