 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:08:30 +0200, "Severi Salminen"
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsiba fi> wrote:
>> >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.
Dear me, I thought your lazy mind had decided to duck out of this
thread, but here you quack on again.
Why should I dither when I have the ability to attempt a true
representation of 16-bit? Again, read the fucking thread properly.
>
>Severi
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:11:19 +0200, "Severi Salminen"
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:
>> >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
Software vendors decide? Dear me! I think it should be the fucking
customer that decides. Bloody hell, are you lot so bloody meek as to
let people like Microsoft dictate to you what you can and cannot do.
As for convenience as an excuse - I call that laziness.
>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
No. He said that JPEG2000 is inappropriate for this venue. He didn't
mention anything about discussing it. Not that there's been much
discussion. Just a load of ducks quacking about not being able to see
the image. Hardly anyone here is willing to discuss the pros and cons
of JPEG2000.
>way to do it...
The time for politeness is way gone. After having one of my posts
mangled by some careless person, you people deserve a piece of my
mind.
>
>> >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?
Oops. I meant to type 'lossy' there. Thanks for noticing that.
>
>> 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
Why should I when I have the chance to deliver a true 16-bit image?
Yes, the chances are that it will not be perfectly displayed at the
end machine, but at least the 16-bit intent will be maintained.
>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.
This is not the newsgroup for scene files. Bloody hell, get your
fucking venue right.
>Don't even bother to answer, I lost my interest. I just hope
Typical. Another lazy person who can't be bothered to think about it.
>you'll post using only JPEG in the future, until most newsreaders support
>JPEG2000 decoding. Thanks, take care.
READ THE REST OF THIS FUCKING THREAD. GET ALL OF THE FACTS BEFORE YOU
QUACK ON LIKE THAT.
What did I say elsewhere? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT: YES, I SHALL BE POSTING
IN JPEG FORMAT FROM NOW ON AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THE POV-EAY TEAM
MEMBERS.
I totally disagree with the point of limiting ones options due to
laziness, but those are the so-called rules.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> READ THE REST OF THIS FUCKING THREAD. GET ALL OF THE FACTS BEFORE YOU
> QUACK ON LIKE THAT.
Ok, whatever, pal. You really shouldn't take things that seriously...
PS. Check your caps-lock functioning.
Severi S.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:03:00 +0200, "Severi Salminen"
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:
>> READ THE REST OF THIS FUCKING THREAD. GET ALL OF THE FACTS BEFORE YOU
>> QUACK ON LIKE THAT.
>
>Ok, whatever, pal. You really shouldn't take things that seriously...
I take things seriously when people fuck with my work, pal.
>
>PS. Check your caps-lock functioning.
Don't be a smart-arse. You know full well the purpose of caps in this
case. Get the message. If this is best you can do in response, get
under your rock now.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:b84m40190ke3kt3boa6ahlgft6inp0bfpd@4ax.com...
> I get pissed off by the stupid isolationist backward thinking that
> obviously takes place here.
Hey, hang on there for a moment and calm down. I don't believe for
one minute that any of the guys and girls here *wouldn't want* a
better file format to show others their images. I for one, certainly
would, and agree with your efforts to show/prove this with JPEG2000.
BUT, sweeping statements like yours above though, Imjer, offend even
me, but then again, who am I? I've been using PoV for only four years,
and I still consider myself as a novice. I'm not a professional pover,
and I know I *never* will be, but I love these groups and the images
posted, and the people here, and the advice and ideas given. To me,
jpg's fine. Hey, most of the time, I don't even see an artifact, so
PNG or JPEG2000 is useless to me!
The whole crux of this is that you should have presented your
argument in a much better way, present your argument and ask something
like, "I'm trying this JPEG2000 format, I think it's better and we
should at least have a look at it - what do you guys think? Can anyone
download it?"
You would have then had the honest answers that you required and
could have moved on further to perhaps complete that goal somehow,
perhaps with support from someone in these groups.
Personally, I think your work is fantastic and wish that you would
post more often, it's not *my* poving style, but nevertheless, I
always wonder how you do such images - you have a great talent there.
KIS. Keep It Simple. I think we're all FOR moving forwards, but
let's take it one step at a time eh...?
~Steve~
imbjr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:34:46 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:b84m40190ke3kt3boa6ahlgft6inp0bfpd@4ax.com...
>
>> I get pissed off by the stupid isolationist backward thinking that
>> obviously takes place here.
>
> Hey, hang on there for a moment and calm down. I don't believe for
>one minute that any of the guys and girls here *wouldn't want* a
>better file format to show others their images.
Judging by the lazy attitudes I'm getting I beg to differ.
>I for one, certainly
>would, and agree with your efforts to show/prove this with JPEG2000.
>BUT, sweeping statements like yours above though, Imjer, offend even
>me, but then again, who am I? I've been using PoV for only four years,
>and I still consider myself as a novice. I'm not a professional pover,
>and I know I *never* will be, but I love these groups and the images
>posted, and the people here, and the advice and ideas given. To me,
>jpg's fine. Hey, most of the time, I don't even see an artifact, so
>PNG or JPEG2000 is useless to me!
You must look closer, they are there I promise you.
>
> The whole crux of this is that you should have presented your
>argument in a much better way, present your argument and ask something
>like, "I'm trying this JPEG2000 format, I think it's better and we
>should at least have a look at it - what do you guys think? Can anyone
>download it?"
I posted an image and mainly all I got was grief and some cheeky
person mangling it. I wasn't even posting it to advocate JPEG2000 -
but that's how it ended. I was merely doing it to preserve the 16-bit
output of the POV scene (though that may now be pointless after at
least some sensible discussion om the subject), but also to minimise
the artifacts.
>
> You would have then had the honest answers that you required and
>could have moved on further to perhaps complete that goal somehow,
>perhaps with support from someone in these groups.
No, my posting just revealed a lot of lazy people with fixed views.
>
> Personally, I think your work is fantastic and wish that you would
>post more often, it's not *my* poving style, but nevertheless, I
>always wonder how you do such images - you have a great talent there.
Cheers. Considering that don't use POV much that's a kind comment.
>
> KIS. Keep It Simple. I think we're all FOR moving forwards, but
>let's take it one step at a time eh...?
Believe you me, I would have thought that was just a single step.
Anyway, this is all moot. It seems that it actually acceptable to post
such images. So where I feel it is required, I will.
>
> ~Steve~
>
>
> imbjr
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >"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 --- does the dimensions of an image have anything to do with
> image formats?
Please don't swear in these newsgroups -- think of poor Elsa!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:11:02 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> Software vendors decide? Dear me! I think it should be the fucking
>> customer that decides. Bloody hell, are you lot so bloody meek as to
>> let people like Microsoft dictate to you what you can and cannot do.
>
>Fine. Write a newsreader for us that shows JPEG2000 inline. What's that?
>Too much work? You must be lazy.
No. I would but I have other commitments. Sheesh. You are too lazy to
do it yourself methinks.
>
>> As for convenience as an excuse - I call that laziness.
>
>Then obviously you don't value your own time.
Valuing time is overated. Learn time control.
>
>> The time for politeness is way gone. After having one of my posts
>> mangled by some careless person, you people deserve a piece of my
>> mind.
>
>Careful. There's not much left...
Mind not brain. Learn the difference.
>
>> Why should I when I have the chance to deliver a true 16-bit image?
>
>This has been answered repeatedly in the discussion. Do try to keep up.
Parrot.
>
>> Typical. Another lazy person who can't be bothered to think about it.
>
>I think you mean "can't be bothered to agree with me."
Definately a parrot.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:12:27 -0600, "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom>
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 --- does the dimensions of an image have anything to do with
>> image formats?
>
>Please don't swear in these newsgroups -- think of poor Elsa!
I do not know to whom you refer. Normally, I would not swear, but
experiencing the wave of apathy and lame excuses here makes me eff.
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:12:52 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> Why should I dither when I have the ability to attempt a true
>> representation of 16-bit?
>
>Not dithering is lazy. So is profanity, for that matter.
It is not lazy, it is merely a part of the language. People with
notions that swearing is somehow wrong are generally wrong in many
other matters too.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
