Warp wrote:
> 
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : I agree. This is the penalty people have to pay for using obscure
> : unpopular operating systems that are not geared to the main stream
> : computer user.
> 
>   Don't you think that's impolite and selfish?
>   And hypocritical, since IIRC your opinion is that no-one should send
> html-code to the newsgroups although the "mainstream" HTML browsers can
> read this kind of articles.

I have no problem with html posts what so ever. I have a reasonably
fast internet connection and I use modern software that is html
compliant. The only reason that I help enforce the non html ruling
here in the news groups is because of the issue that people such
as yourself complain so loudly on the subject that I get tired of
hearing about it. Also as a memeber of the TAG I have a responsibility
to to the POV-Team to help keep the strain on the news servers
resources down to a minimum.
  Otherwise I wouldn't care one way or another. Sometimes I really
miss not being able to use some of the added bennefits of posting
in html. It would be really nice to color highlight or underline a
phrase to add emphasis to a statement or hightlight a problem in
scene code. Plain text is boring and restrictive.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Creating computer graphics is one of the most computer intensive
proffesions/hobbies around and people who create and/or watch CG (especially 3D
CGI) know they need some real computing power to keep up with the developments
of it's industry, especially online. Since this NG is geared toward animations
most of it's readers probably have a reasonable World Wide Web connection and so
they have the abillity to download the latest and greatest of codecs or any
other software/driver and I strongly suggest they do because if you wanna keep
up with the rest it's best to have the latest technologies at your disposal and
currently for online animations DivX;-) can't be beat. It has super quality at a
high compression ratio and that's what we all want. If you don't want some
people to miss out on your latest and greatest animation then post them in
several different formats. Especially in 3DCGI, people preffer quality and
that's what DivX;-) delivers: High quality at a great compression ratio. Have
you ever tried to create a descent looking animation using the Cinepak codec?
Then you know what I mean when I say it's quality (well, at least most of us) we
want.
HTML-coding your NG postings is a totally different ball game.HTML-code is used
to create Webpages or enhanced E-mails and indeed could be used for sending a
HTML message to a NG but not sending them that way to a NG has to do with ethics
and not with the abillity of browsers to read them.

Oh, one more thing, it's not the OS you use it's how you use it.
If you're reffering to the OS a Mac uses that's not as stable as you think.
People who work on DEC Alpha's or SGI's and use IRIX well they still preffer to
watch quality animations instead of highly compressed animations with low
quality. (Why else would they be using the Workstations they use?).

My 2 cents,

Rob Verweij.


Warp schreef:

> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : I agree. This is the penalty people have to pay for using obscure
> : unpopular operating systems that are not geared to the main stream
> : computer user.
>
>   Don't you think that's impolite and selfish?
>   And hypocritical, since IIRC your opinion is that no-one should send
> html-code to the newsgroups although the "mainstream" HTML browsers can
> read this kind of articles.
>
>   Some people want to work with real operating systems, which are stable and
> efficient, not toys. If the mainstream computer user uses shit, that doesn't
> mean that everyone should use it.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

It all boils down to a matter of personal opinion. I, and many others with me,
preffer quality especially in 3DCGI. You have a point there and, as I always do,
I suggest to anyone who wants his or her animation to be seen by the widest
range of viewers to post their animations in several different file formats.

Rob Verweij.

Bill DeWitt schreef:

> "Rob Verweij" <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote :
> >
> > Well, then that's their loss.
>
>     Since one can only assume that one posts an image on a public forum
> because one wants it viewed by that public, one can say that the loss is the
> loss of the poster if that image cannot be viewed.
>
>     Clearly not a beneficial feature of the codex.

Post a reply to this message

And that's exactly what I always do. In the subject line I always tell which
Codec I have used.
I use the best compression which also turns out to be the best quality, why else
you think a DVD looks so great?
Most people who are working in the 3DCGI industry know what heir audience wants
and that's quality and that's exactly what the DivX;-) codec delivers and that's
also the reason why most of the 3DCGI studios I know post their work online
using the DivX;-) codec.

Rob.

Dave Blandston schreef:

> "Rob Verweij" <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote in message
> news:3A2E812F.AF534D7D@worldonline.nl...
> > It's best to use DivX;-)
>
> Without arguing about who loses what, how about if anyone who chooses to use
> Divx or some other less accessible codec, please at least mention in your
> subject line what codec you're using, so those of us who chose not to
> install every codec in the world can skip your posting, and not waste the
> time downloading an animation that we can't view. Then we can all be happy -
> Divx users can post beautiful animations, and everyone else can ignore them.
>
> Regards,
> Dave

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: I have no problem with html posts what so ever. I have a reasonably
: fast internet connection and I use modern software that is html
: compliant.

  Your problem is that you think that html compliance is a measurement
of an advanced news reader. However, you are using a very limited news
reader, which happens to know html, and you think that it's very advanced
because of that.
  However, those who are using really advanced news readers would have to
degrade their software if they started using the same browsers you are using.
They wouldn't be able to use all the advanced features they are using right
now only because they had to use a limited html browser to read the news.
  So what you call "modern software" would actually be a huge step backwards
in news reading.
  Granted, you'll get graphical html support, but you will also lose lots
of advanced and efficient features found in good news readers.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in berichtnieuws
3a2fa5d8@news.povray.org...
> Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote:
> : Don't forget: DivX also exists for Linux!
>
>   This statement is a bit misleading.
>
>   "A file format exists for Linux". Since when file formats exist only
> in certain systems? Do the stop existing in other systems?
>   You probably meant that there's a DivX player for Linux.

I was talking about the codec, not about the file format.  All I know is
that you can play DivX;-) files on Linux.


--
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

>   You call Windows an "advance"?

what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
sitting on top of a command line OS?

Windows is a major advance in that it has made computers accessible to the
masses, I don't see any of the competition having anything like that kind of
impact.


--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://www.kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
> 
> what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
> sitting on top of a command line OS?
> 

Er... Have you even seen Linux?
It has a command line (which is actually rather useful, unlike DOS) - but you
don't have to look at it under Linux any more so than under Windows, if you
don't want to. And what exactly is your definition of a command line OS? AFAIK
Windows 2000 has a command line too, but the default UI is graphical. You can
set a graphical UI to be the default under Linux, too. So where's the
difference?

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
> 
> >   You call Windows an "advance"?
> 
> what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
> sitting on top of a command line OS?
> 
> Windows is a major advance in that it has made computers accessible to the
> masses, I don't see any of the competition having anything like that kind of
> impact.

Oh, this is bull.

First off, Windows is also a GUI sitting on a command line.

Second, there were plenty of masses using DOS. They didn't need no
steenkin' Windows.

And third, if you want to make this kind of argument, you should be
making it about the platform that brought us a GUI long before anyone
else did, and that Windows blatantly ripped off. (I think we all know
which one that is.)

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
> >
> > Not at all. I simply refuse to accept Windows as a standard, de facto or
> > otherwise. It's simply not nearly good enough
> 
>     Whatever technical problems you have with Windows does not affect its
> suitability as a standard.

Funny, I thought they were extremely relevant.

>     Windows is the standard...

Saying don't make it so, pal.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message