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

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

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

In article <p63i40lg0jn2qa2jaog4e4l8tbdfq222sq@4ax.com> , IMBJR 
<no### [at] spamhere>  wrote:

> By the way, is it my imagination or is there more format leeway on the
> animation gorup

Your observation is correct.  The main reason is that even the extended
MPEG-1 animations frequently "bend" the MPEG-1 standard so much, they cannot
be viewed everywhere and always without problems.  So there is little point
in sticking to that format, and usually the choice of codec is dominated by
the kind of animation and the desired audience.  Of course you could also
post in main profile MPEG-2 format, but then you could only get a few
seconds of animation posted...

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 04:03:44 -0700, "Jason F. Kowalski"

> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote
> >What's the point of posting in JPEG2000?

> In this case, preservation of the 16-bit output of POV.

Since most video cards (not to mention LCDs) cannot display that, what's the
point (unless it's a height map or somesuch intermediate data) ?

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote

> Different strokes yadda yadda. If you can see it, fine - if you
> cannot, fine.

Fine. I don't wish to download images you don't want me to see. *plonk*

Post a reply to this message

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

I assume this one:
  http://www.imbjr.freeserve.co.uk/book/art/marbles.jpg
is the approved traditional jpeg?  (it's linked from the URL you posted)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:13:59 -0700, "Jason F. Kowalski"
<jfk### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 04:03:44 -0700, "Jason F. Kowalski"
>
>> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote
>> >What's the point of posting in JPEG2000?
>
>> In this case, preservation of the 16-bit output of POV.
>
>Since most video cards (not to mention LCDs) cannot display that, what's the
>point (unless it's a height map or somesuch intermediate data) ?
>

Preservation of the output of POV-Ray is the point, plus an attempt to
avoid gradient banding. However, this is all at the mercy of the
receiving end.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:22:06 -0700, "Jason F. Kowalski"
<jfk### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote
>
>> Different strokes yadda yadda. If you can see it, fine - if you
>> cannot, fine.
>
>Fine. I don't wish to download images you don't want me to see. *plonk*

Go on, hide under a shell. We shall pass you by and laugh at the
person who couldn't be bothered with keeping up with developments in
graphics.

>

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 04:19:13 -0800, Ron Mayer
<rm_### [at] cheapcomplexdevicescom> wrote:

>IMBJR 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?
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
>> http://www.imbjr.com
>
>I assume this one:
>  http://www.imbjr.freeserve.co.uk/book/art/marbles.jpg
>is the approved traditional jpeg?  (it's linked from the URL you posted)

Sort of, but that's been editted for website usage - hence the
preservation of the book seam in the middle.

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

Post a reply to this message