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

"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
>
> Saying don't make it so, pal.


    Saying it is not without giving reasons that actually apply to the
formation of a standard in an industry doesn't make it so either, what's
your point. There have been many reasons posted here as to why Windows can
be considered a standard, wide range of use, large number of programs
written for it while other OS's scramble to make their system play the
Windows programs, ease of use to newcomers and powerful use of new
technology.

    Sure all the other OS's have one or two of the many reasons, but Windows
has them all. And sure Windows has some problems and each of the other OS's
have some of those problems as well as different problems of their own.

    "I don't like Windows", no matter how often repeated doesn't mean
something is not a standard. I don't like 10/32 threaded pan head slot
screws, but they are a standard for hanging ceiling fans. I don't like wire
sized screws at all, but they are a standard.

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Regardless of statements to the contrary, yes, Windows is still a GUI on top of
DOS. Additionally, in order to maintain backward compatibility, Windows has had
to keep a lot of badly designed legacy code. Windows has picked up a lot of new
baggage, a really incredible amount, in their attempt to be everything to all
people. I must say that I do enjoy programming for Windows using a properly
designed framework (Borland's VCL under C++Builder), but I can't wait for the
Linux version to come around.

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

I have installed the CygWin environment (Unix on Windows) so I can have the nice
Unix-type tools that Windows is lacking. It helps ease the pain ;-)

> 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.)

 ... which Apple got from Xerox and improved upon. I've always wondered if Apple
didn't look at Windows when it first came out and remarked the phrase that
Cheech Marin quoted in one of his movies: "Hey, man! Somebody ripped off what I
ripped off!" ;-)   What I like about Apple lately is their close attention to
what the public wants, now. Their new machines are really nice.

I use my Linux box more than I use my Windows box, but I have to say that I
can't recommend it to my less computer literate friends and family, yet. But I
would recommend a Mac to them before I recommended a Windows machine. I just
think that they have really got their act together now, and they know exatcly
where they are going.

Jon

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------

Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg

--------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message