 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spam here> wrote in message
news:b99k4014usj4o1eam949s1raru8ni81cpn@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
Sorry to inform you, but when I want high quality graphics, I use 4800 X
3200 bitmaps. Quite obviously, I don't post them. If I'm going to post
something, it's converted to .jpg, not something that half of the people I
want to send it to can't read. When IE in this kludge of a windoze box I'm
running can't recognize that there's an attachment there, you might as well
send the jpeg2000 to yourself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:26:27 +0000, IMBJR wrote:
> 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.
Please have the courtesy to post a format we CAN ACTUALLY VIEW.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:33:03 -0500, Tyler Eaves <tyl### [at] NOSPAMml1net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:26:27 +0000, IMBJR wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Please have the courtesy to post a format we CAN ACTUALLY VIEW.
You are late in the game, this has aready been dealt with. Get the
facts in first before you splutter.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 19:20:02 -0600, "GreyBeard" <r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet>
wrote:
>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:b99k4014usj4o1eam949s1raru8ni81cpn@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>>
>Sorry to inform you, but when I want high quality graphics, I use 4800 X
>3200 bitmaps.
What the fuck does the dimensions of an image have anything to do with
image formats?
As for 'bitmap', what the fuck does that mean? Are we talking TIFF,
BMP, PNG, what? Be more precise otherwise you are just coming off as a
more pointless member of the POV police chorus.
>Quite obviously, I don't post them. If I'm going to post
>something, it's converted to .jpg, not something that half of the people I
>want to send it to can't read. When IE in this kludge of a windoze box I'm
>running can't recognize that there's an attachment there, you might as well
>send the jpeg2000 to yourself.
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >Sorry to inform you, but when I want high quality graphics, I use 4800 X
> >3200 bitmaps.
>
> What the fuck does the dimensions of an image have anything to do with
> image formats?
>
> As for 'bitmap', what the fuck does that mean? Are we talking TIFF,
> BMP, PNG, what? Be more precise otherwise you are just coming off as a
> more pointless member of the POV police chorus.
Calm down, no need to get that pissed off. You posted an image in a format
that only a very small minority can view by default - are you surprised of
the feedback? The format is of course technically superior to JPEG, nobody
can deny that, but the purpose of this group is probably to share pictures
with others, not to be an archive of best possible quality images. You can
preserve the 16-bit output of POV-Ray even without posting the same image
_here_ - just take the whopping few seconds to convert it. And again: 16-bit
serves (at the present) no purpose other than for editing as most current
videocards can't show more than 8bits/pixel. You will see the same kind of
gradation no matter which format (8 or 16 bits). But I guess you allready
knew this...
Severi S.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >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.
All I saw was artifacts in the JPEF image caused by too low quality setting.
Increase the setting and the artifacts can be mostly eliminated. And there
is no "drop in colour-depth" when viewed with 99,99% of current videocards.
Severi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:32:12 +0200, "Severi Salminen"
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:
>> >Sorry to inform you, but when I want high quality graphics, I use 4800 X
>> >3200 bitmaps.
>>
>> What the fuck does the dimensions of an image have anything to do with
>> image formats?
>>
>> As for 'bitmap', what the fuck does that mean? Are we talking TIFF,
>> BMP, PNG, what? Be more precise otherwise you are just coming off as a
>> more pointless member of the POV police chorus.
>
>Calm down, no need to get that pissed off. You posted an image in a format
I get pissed off by the stupid isolationist backward thinking that
obviously takes place here.
>that only a very small minority can view by default - are you surprised of
>the feedback?
I've had better feedback in other places, including those where I'm
not exactly flavour of the month. This place however is full of ery
backwards looking people.
>The format is of course technically superior to JPEG, nobody
>can deny that, but the purpose of this group is probably to share pictures
>with others, not to be an archive of best possible quality images.
That JPEG2000 image was not supposed to be a best-quality picture. For
that I would have posted the archived TIFF. JPEG2000 with lossless
compression is still not going to pass for best quality.
>You can
>preserve the 16-bit output of POV-Ray even without posting the same image
>_here_ - just take the whopping few seconds to convert it. And again: 16-bit
>serves (at the present) no purpose other than for editing as most current
>videocards can't show more than 8bits/pixel. You will see the same kind of
>gradation no matter which format (8 or 16 bits). But I guess you allready
>knew this...
This is not necessarily so. Reading the fucking thread and you will
see. Bloody hell, why do you people insist on jumping into a thread
without reading all of what's available first?
To repeat:
One is definately at the mercy of the receiving machine and its
software, but how that combination chooses to render a 16-bit image is
unknown. Indeed it could just "posterise" it and re-introduce gradient
banding or it could perhaps apply a dithering to simulate the original
colour depth.
>
>Severi S.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:40:22 +0200, "Severi Salminen"
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:
>> >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.
>
>All I saw was artifacts in the JPEF image caused by too low quality setting.
>Increase the setting and the artifacts can be mostly eliminated. And there
>is no "drop in colour-depth" when viewed with 99,99% of current videocards.
That's because the person who posted the JPEG decided to effectly
deface the image with use of shoddy compression settings. The impudent
cheek!
READ THE THREAD FIRST. Bloody hell. I'm also talking about gradient
banding here. Get the facts in first, eh? Colour depth is not much of
an issue here because of the hardware, but gradient banding is.
>
>Severi
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >All I saw was artifacts in the JPEF image caused by too low quality
setting.
> >Increase the setting and the artifacts can be mostly eliminated. And
there
> >is no "drop in colour-depth" when viewed with 99,99% of current
videocards.
>
> That's because the person who posted the JPEG decided to effectly
> deface the image with use of shoddy compression settings. The impudent
> cheek!
>
> READ THE THREAD FIRST. Bloody hell. I'm also talking about gradient
> banding here. Get the facts in first, eh? Colour depth is not much of
> an issue here because of the hardware, but gradient banding is.
You wrote: "you have only succeeded in introducing artifacts and a drop in
colour-depth". And if you agree thatmost people can only see 8bit/pixel
because of the hardware, then the banding is not an issue of file format but
the way you generated/converted the file. Had you applied the dithering
yourseld, there would not be any problem.
Severi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >that only a very small minority can view by default - are you surprised
of
> >the feedback?
>
> I've had better feedback in other places, including those where I'm
> not exactly flavour of the month. This place however is full of ery
> backwards looking people.
This place is full of people who want to see the attachment directly with
their news reader software without the need to install plugins, open
external applications etc. It is called convenience. I agree with you that I
also would like people to adopt new and better technologies faster but
simetimes you have to settle to what software vendors decide. I can also say
that this is not the place to try to "encourage" people for it (because of
what Thorsten said) and also: being polite would be a _lot_ more efficient
way to do it...
> >The format is of course technically superior to JPEG, nobody
> >can deny that, but the purpose of this group is probably to share
pictures
> >with others, not to be an archive of best possible quality images.
>
> That JPEG2000 image was not supposed to be a best-quality picture. For
> that I would have posted the archived TIFF. JPEG2000 with lossless
> compression is still not going to pass for best quality.
Are you comparing 16-bit TIFF to 16-bit lossless JPEG2000? How can there be
a difference between image quality of those two?
> One is definately at the mercy of the receiving machine and its
> software, but how that combination chooses to render a 16-bit image is
> unknown. Indeed it could just "posterise" it and re-introduce gradient
> banding or it could perhaps apply a dithering to simulate the original
> colour depth.
If you think dithered image looks better than banded, then why didn't you
post a dithered JPEG in the first place? And since the "Preservation of the
output of POV-Ray is the point" you also could have posted the source code
for the scene: people could have seen it, rendered it to best fit their
hardware etc. Don't even bother to answer, I lost my interest. I just hope
you'll post using only JPEG in the future, until most newsreaders support
JPEG2000 decoding. Thanks, take care.
Severi S:
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
