POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : marbles - [16-bit JPEG2000] Server Time
12 Aug 2024 05:18:46 EDT (-0400)
  marbles - [16-bit JPEG2000] (Message 24 to 33 of 83)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: jpg version
Date: 5 Mar 2004 16:28:55
Message: <4048f117@news.povray.org>
In article <3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com> , IMBJR 
<no### [at] spamhere>  wrote:

> Whilst I appreciate the idea behind reposting the image in standard
> JPEG format, you have only succeeded in introducing artifacts and a
> drop in colour-depth. The end result is a defacing of my original
> posting.
>
> Please don't do this in the future. How would you like it if I took
> your postings and reposted then as 4 colour GIFs or worse?

Shay did an appropriate thing to allow others to view your image.  This
obviously is in your interest if you are at all interested in sharing your
image with others - and you would not post it here is you were not
interested in sharing it.

Please note that you broke etiquette of these groups by posting in a not
widely supported format for no benefit whatsoever.  Your claim about
introducing artifacts that deface your image is ridiculous.  You are free to
put your images on a website in any format you wish, but *please* try to
avoid posting in formats most people in these groups cannot view without
hassle.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org


Post a reply to this message

From: IMBJR
Subject: Re: jpg version
Date: 5 Mar 2004 17:21:32
Message: <jhvh4017pvnqqs5t3vp1vd5eofp65blsm7@4ax.com>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:06:32 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:

>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com...
>

Whoopie. 

You know very well as to what I was referring to. Have enough courtesy
to not to do it again.

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


Post a reply to this message

From: IMBJR
Subject: Re: jpg version
Date: 5 Mar 2004 17:29:37
Message: <rkvh40pbrbocc188tu75ncoahu7kr5q8qj@4ax.com>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:07:59 -0600, "Mike Raiford"
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:58:17 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:
>>
>> Whilst I appreciate the idea behind reposting the image in standard
>> JPEG format, you have only succeeded in introducing artifacts and a
>> drop in colour-depth. The end result is a defacing of my original
>> posting.
>>
>> Please don't do this in the future. How would you like it if I took
>> your postings and reposted then as 4 colour GIFs or worse?
>
>FWIW, Most people aren't even going to be able to see the difference in the
>16bit/Component color as opposed to 8bit/C color. So, why not just post it
>as a standard jpg and save people who may not be compatible with a lesser
>known format.

Two words: gradient banding - and people can see it. Since POV is
capable of 16-bit colour depth I chose to utilise it and keep that
depth for the on-line version too.

However, how a particular piece of software or hardware device
displays a 16-bit image is another matter which is pretty much out of
my hands. Even with a 16-bit image, some platforms may introduce
banding as they attempt to display the image in a reduced depth.

Still, at least with a 16-bit colour depth image, the gradient-banding
reduction intent is there.

>
>I don't necessarily  think the posting of a standard JPG is nearly as bad as
>posting a "4 colour GIF". 

Perhaps not, but the reposted image looked horrible compared to the
way I prepared it. I do not think it was a good idea to repost the
image in a manner that detracted from the original.

>People use a wide variety of OSes on these groups
>(remember, POV-Ray is multi-platform), some may not have access to tools to
>view a JPEG2000 file.

Different strokes yadda yadda. If you can see it, fine - if you
cannot, fine. I have merely presented the image in the manner in which
I intended it to be.

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


Post a reply to this message

From: IMBJR
Subject: Re: jpg version
Date: 5 Mar 2004 17:31:43
Message: <t30i40l724h59kuhfdsbk5ue95bp4e3e9a@4ax.com>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:16:54 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:58:17 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>> >news:1qbf4053e0q04qifcrt7nts9avefvo5egk@4ax.com...
>> >
>>
>> Whilst I appreciate the idea behind reposting the image in standard
>> JPEG format, you have only succeeded in introducing artifacts and a
>> drop in colour-depth. The end result is a defacing of my original
>> posting.
>>
>> Please don't do this in the future. How would you like it if I took
>> your postings and reposted then as 4 colour GIFs or worse?
>
>   You have a fair point, but at the end of the day Imjer, we want to
>see an image, not *hunt* for the damned thing!

This is true, but at least I hope I'm making an effort to use new
formats. We cannot just sit still.

>
>     Heh, I tried... and failed...  ;)
>
>   I understand your point of view, but you could have easily
>explained what you wanted to achieve, and post a link for a webpage
>somewhere - I am aware that you can do this, so there's no excuse on
>your part.

I don't oridinarily explain my material. However, if someone asks,
then I will explain. 

>
>     It's Friday evening, have a drink on me.  :o)

I'm having a Stella. Cheers.

>
>      ~Steve~
>

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


Post a reply to this message

From: IMBJR
Subject: Re: jpg version
Date: 5 Mar 2004 17:49:23
Message: <v70i40lm30od4dbir658ed1osufncm75r4@4ax.com>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:28:53 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>In article <3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com> , IMBJR 
><no### [at] spamhere>  wrote:
>
>> Whilst I appreciate the idea behind reposting the image in standard
>> JPEG format, you have only succeeded in introducing artifacts and a
>> drop in colour-depth. The end result is a defacing of my original
>> posting.
>>
>> Please don't do this in the future. How would you like it if I took
>> your postings and reposted then as 4 colour GIFs or worse?
>
>Shay did an appropriate thing to allow others to view your image.  This

Without my permission and in a manner that detracted from the
original.

>obviously is in your interest if you are at all interested in sharing your
>image with others - and you would not post it here is you were not
>interested in sharing it.

It was shared in the format I intended it to be shared in. If people
cannot see it, fine. Those who can, fine. I am merely attempting to
move on in image format technologies. We cannot merely sit still.

>
>Please note that you broke etiquette of these groups by posting in a not
>widely supported format for no benefit whatsoever.  Your claim about

Yawn. Here we go. Show me exactly where it says I cannot do this and I
will not. Otherwise, you are merely projecting you own desires as to
how one should "behave". 

>introducing artifacts that deface your image is ridiculous.  You are free to

If that is ridiculous, then see the attachment. I think you will find
it is your statement that is ridiculous. Hopefully, you are not so far
back in the stone-age that you cannot view a PNG formatted image.

>put your images on a website in any format you wish, but *please* try to
>avoid posting in formats most people in these groups cannot view without
>hassle.

If you cannot keep up with image format developments, I suggest you
remain quiet on the subject.

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


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'marbles_comparision.png' (119 KB)

Preview of image 'marbles_comparision.png'
marbles_comparision.png


 

From: nospam
Subject: Re: marbles - [16-bit JPEG2000]
Date: 5 Mar 2004 18:06:35
Message: <4048ccb8.11891519@localhost>
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:54:45 -0000, Jamie Davison
<jam### [at] dslpipexcom> wrote:

>> >in JPEG 2000 ? I can't see it :-(
>> >
>> Infranview with appropriate plugin is a free option available for
>> viewing JPEG2000 files.
>
>And Irfanview with an appropriate plugin shouldn't be required to view 
>images on these groups...
>
>I, for one am not going to install it.
>
>Jamie.

right on!  The original poster should post normal
standard jpeg, or not post at all.


Post a reply to this message

From: Skip Talbot
Subject: Re: jpg version
Date: 5 Mar 2004 18:10:29
Message: <404908e5@news.povray.org>
I'm not adding to this argument any, but I do have a question.  Am I correct
in assuming that my SVGA trinitron monitor cannot display the increased
color depth of IMBJR's original?  Different hardware is required, no?  I can
see the improvement in the quality in IMBJR's png posting but I can still
only see 8 bits per color channel, no?

Skip


Post a reply to this message

From: Rune
Subject: Re: jpg version
Date: 5 Mar 2004 18:17:21
Message: <40490a81@news.povray.org>
IMBJR wrote:
> It was shared in the format I intended it to
> be shared in. If people cannot see it, fine.
> Those who can, fine. I am merely attempting
> to move on in image format technologies. We
> cannot merely sit still.

That's what you can do on a personal website. But when you post on a
privately owned news server you are expected to follow the guidelines
set by the owner.

>> Please note that you broke etiquette of
>> these groups by posting in a not widely
>> supported format for no benefit whatsoever.
>> Your claim about
>
> Yawn. Here we go. Show me exactly where it
> says I cannot do this and I will not.

Well, right there in Thorsten's post if nowhere else.

> Otherwise, you are merely projecting you own
> desires as to how one should "behave".

Thorsten is a member of the POV-Team and thus have full authority to act
on behalf of the owner of this news server. He have just wrote to you
that you "cannot do this" and so you need to look no further where it is
written. Convenient, isn't it?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com **updated Jan 29**
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk


Post a reply to this message

From: IMBJR
Subject: Re: jpg version
Date: 5 Mar 2004 18:26:42
Message: <p63i40lg0jn2qa2jaog4e4l8tbdfq222sq@4ax.com>
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 00:18:16 +0100, "Rune" <run### [at] runevisioncom>
wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> It was shared in the format I intended it to
>> be shared in. If people cannot see it, fine.
>> Those who can, fine. I am merely attempting
>> to move on in image format technologies. We
>> cannot merely sit still.
>
>That's what you can do on a personal website. But when you post on a
>privately owned news server you are expected to follow the guidelines
>set by the owner.
>
>>> Please note that you broke etiquette of
>>> these groups by posting in a not widely
>>> supported format for no benefit whatsoever.
>>> Your claim about
>>
>> Yawn. Here we go. Show me exactly where it
>> says I cannot do this and I will not.
>
>Well, right there in Thorsten's post if nowhere else.
>
>> Otherwise, you are merely projecting you own
>> desires as to how one should "behave".
>
>Thorsten is a member of the POV-Team and thus have full authority to act
>on behalf of the owner of this news server. He have just wrote to you
>that you "cannot do this" and so you need to look no further where it is
>written. Convenient, isn't it?

Fine. If you all want to sit still. So be it. Substandard JPEG it is.

By the way, is it my imagination or is there more format leeway on the
animation gorup - or is that because there's less formats for
animation?

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


Post a reply to this message

From: IMBJR
Subject: Re: jpg version
Date: 5 Mar 2004 18:29:24
Message: <7f3i4092son3e0m763nfq9afn20j91di5m@4ax.com>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:10:29 -0600, "Skip Talbot" <sta### [at] uiucedu>
wrote:

>I'm not adding to this argument any, but I do have a question.  Am I correct
>in assuming that my SVGA trinitron monitor cannot display the increased
>color depth of IMBJR's original?  Different hardware is required, no?  I can
>see the improvement in the quality in IMBJR's png posting but I can still
>only see 8 bits per color channel, no?

This is something I touched on in another post. The problem is out of
my hands in terms of how hardware/software renders such images. They
will either do a bad job and potentially introduce gradient banding or
they will attempt to mimimise the effect and use dithering.

I'm certainly no expert when it comes to hardware - for all I know,
VDUs have been able to support such colour depth for years.

>
>Skip
>

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


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.