 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:32:52 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> It is not lazy, it is merely a part of the language.
>
>It's lazy in that you're trying to express your own emotions or invoke
>responses in others without using words actually related to those
>emotions, but which instead have connotations unrelated to the
>discussion.
Sorry you have such a very narrow of such an expressive language.
> F'ing has nothing to do with JPEG2000, and is therefore
>entirely off-topic for this discussion. But you're too lazy to try to
>actually express your argument and then answer the counter-arguments
>with anything but profanity and insults.
Hahahahahaha! Make me laugh. You are arguing that words are nothing to
do with JPEG2000! Well that's true - but such an incredibly pointless
argument. Plus, indirectly, of course they are - since they are used
to form a description of the standard and to debate the use of the
format.
Looks like I've got you obsessing over the use of the word 'lazy'. Try
slapping your head, it might dislodge the word.
>
>Of course, next you tell me that I must not have read the thread,
>because otherwise I'd have to agree with you.
Well, Mr. Parrot, do I have to do that? Surely you've got the message
by now. Dear me, slow on the uptake or what?
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:ef3n405huo2hlu7qjh3lsmiu5a0g85r3b1@4ax.com...
> 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.
> 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.
Well, I understand that people use their workstations/Mac's/PC's
so much differently to ourselves with their own workload, that, yes,
the word 'lazy' can be introduced there. I can certainly understand
that. I'm the same. I reply to about 5-10 emails a day on our
commercial site, and those in turn *can* result in around 30-40 emails
a day - back and forth, back and forth... I hate it, I'm a designer,
not a secretary. My relaxation of an evening is clicking a few images
and viewing them, not trying to find/open them. Can you see that side
of it 'for now'?
> 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.
Yeah, sure, I *do* know that from what I've read in the groups, but
I'm also colour-blind and wear fairly strong glasses. These glasses
are around 15 years old, so I really should get another eye test, and
perhaps I'll be able to see these artifacts then... Maybe. My bad...
:/
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
No, to most users, you posted a 'file' that most users couldn't view
as instantly as they wanted.
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.
Could you show the rest of us these artifacts? Were they *that bad*
using .jpg?
>
> >
> > 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.
No, your posting just aggravated people that wanted to see your
image instantly - like you've always done it - with .jpg format.
>
> >
> > 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.
You don't use Pov much? Heh, you could have fooled me!
>
> >
> > 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.
And so it should be. But, the file JPEG2000 speaks for itself
imo -
the year 2000, that's a long time ago now. Someone, somewhere, missed
the boat IMO... :/ (Please, correct me if I'm wrong with this
anology).
>
> Anyway, this is all moot. It seems that it actually acceptable to
post
> such images. So where I feel it is required, I will.
Well, I've downloaded the latest release of Irfanview and its plugins
a couple of days ago, so post away. It really doesn't bother me. I'll
make the time and look forward to seeing them.
~Steve~
> imbjr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 23:10:03 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:ef3n405huo2hlu7qjh3lsmiu5a0g85r3b1@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, I understand that people use their workstations/Mac's/PC's
>so much differently to ourselves with their own workload, that, yes,
>the word 'lazy' can be introduced there. I can certainly understand
>that. I'm the same. I reply to about 5-10 emails a day on our
>commercial site, and those in turn *can* result in around 30-40 emails
>a day - back and forth, back and forth... I hate it, I'm a designer,
>not a secretary. My relaxation of an evening is clicking a few images
>and viewing them, not trying to find/open them. Can you see that side
>of it 'for now'?
I certainly can. There are aspects of what you describe which I apply
to my work. However, I tend to prefer a more "active" approach to my
browsing. Sometimes though that actually means I can't get to sleep as
my mind is still switch on!
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Yeah, sure, I *do* know that from what I've read in the groups, but
>I'm also colour-blind and wear fairly strong glasses. These glasses
>are around 15 years old, so I really should get another eye test, and
>perhaps I'll be able to see these artifacts then... Maybe. My bad...
Ah, I see. Have you ever magnified an image digitally? Then you will
what are talking about.
>:/
>
>
> The whole crux of this is that you should have presented your
>argument in a much better way, present your argument and ask
>something
Well, as I've already stated - this was never about arguing for the
use of JPEG2000. I merely posted an image in that format because
that's the format I thought best represented what I needed to achieve.
The advocacy came later after the rather odd responses I got to the
posting.
>> >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
>
> No, to most users, you posted a 'file' that most users couldn't view
>as instantly as they wanted.
See above - ah, looks like I might be repeating myself in this thread.
Oh well.
>
>
>
>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.
>
> Could you show the rest of us these artifacts? Were they *that bad*
>using .jpg?
I posted a comparison image. It should still be on the server. They
were certainly noticable and not want I intended at all.
>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> No, your posting just aggravated people that wanted to see your
>image instantly - like you've always done it - with .jpg format.
In this case, it had to be JPEG2000, there were 16-bit colour and
artifact issues that needed addressing. Though now it seems that the
16-bit aspect of all of this may be pointless as the ability of
hardware to support this may be lacking, plus there's the possibility
that lossy compression does not help when used with 16-bit.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> You don't use Pov much? Heh, you could have fooled me!
No, it's true. I mainly use Bryce and Poser. I only use POV when I
have a procedural effect in mind - one that really could do with
scripting to help it into being.
>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> And so it should be. But, the file JPEG2000 speaks for itself
>imo -
>the year 2000, that's a long time ago now. Someone, somewhere, missed
>the boat IMO... :/ (Please, correct me if I'm wrong with this
>anology).
I'm not sure. I think there are a number of various standards for
different things out there that bear oldish looking dates. However,
it's the implementation wake that follows that is important - I think
we are about to get the full swell of that soon.
>
>
>>
>> Anyway, this is all moot. It seems that it actually acceptable to
>post
>> such images. So where I feel it is required, I will.
>
> Well, I've downloaded the latest release of Irfanview and its plugins
>a couple of days ago, so post away. It really doesn't bother me. I'll
>make the time and look forward to seeing them.
Cheers.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:of8n40p7fm2dmr7t8sg105m06t8alm7egd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:12:27 -0600, "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom>
> >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.
I'm not even sure who said what anymore :-) And, I'm definitely no stranger
a fight on a newsgroup. Altogether, it's best to keep the f-words off,
whoever said it, just because you never know who is reading (Elsa might be,
for example!). Besides, it is more clever to use other words that have more
impact (the f-word is overused now anyway).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:18:12 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> > Was it supposed to be greyscale, or is PSP's support broken? :-)
>
> Try this at 8-bit.
My Irfan View with full set of plugins refused to display it.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 19:24:21 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> > Fine. I don't wish to download images you don't want me to see. *plonk*
>
> Go on, hide under a shell.
From the fact that you can install everything on your machine how do you
conclude that it is easy/possible for everyone ?
I'm really impreessed by your obstinacy to be not user-friendly to users of
your images.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:of8n40p7fm2dmr7t8sg105m06t8alm7egd@4ax.com...
>
> 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.
>
No, your egotisim is taking the front, and it shows very strongly. I don't
think I'm too unusual, but I have three boxes that I use, only one of which
is connected to anything but itself, and as it is used for nothing but the
internet, it is minimal and will remain that way. There are some here who's
work I deem highly enough to download and run in one of the other machines,
but if you're using poser and bryce, your file size is going to prevent
that. While my other machines have 64 and 128 meg graphic cards, this one
has a Diamond Stealth, and I don't deem internet use worthy of anything
higher. (And before you come up with the normal puke, such as "ludite" or
some such other stupid term, I suggest you email blank checks before telling
me that I should "upgrade" this box.)
Just accept that you're using an oddball format and that expecting everyone
else to be able to decode, or even recognize that it's there is rather
stupid.
Oh, BTW, windows bitmap format, and my printer being capable of 1200 DPI, I
like to be able to push the output to the limits of the printer. I'm also
fond of printing to the full 11 X 17 that the printer is capable of too. I
could go 13 X 19 but the paper is too hard to find.
You aren't going to change the world, junior. It may change, but probably
not at your hand.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:gj9n40h76tm8sn3l8lqsf3vutoog0v5bon@4ax.com...
>
> Sorry you have such a very narrow of such an expressive language.
>
Would you like to learn how expressive 44 years in a factory can make the
language? Sorry dud, but I know some women that could show you how
expressive it can really be, and how graphic the mental pictures can be.
I don't think I'm alone, but your attitude has told me that you don't post
anything worth making me go through a bunch of hoops to see. A leader of
men, or a pacesetter, you are not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:00:03 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> wrote:
>
>> Dan P wrote:
>>> Until Microsoft builds an image format into their browser, it
>>> doesn't stand a chance. Behold, the power of M$!
>>
>> Paint Shop Pro supports it. $50 for a very nice photo editting
>> program.
>>
>> Was it supposed to be greyscale, or is PSP's support broken? :-)
>
> Try this at 8-bit.
Still grey. Just post a normal JPEG if you want us to see it!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:18:50 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:00:03 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan P wrote:
>>>> Until Microsoft builds an image format into their browser, it
>>>> doesn't stand a chance. Behold, the power of M$!
>>>
>>> Paint Shop Pro supports it. $50 for a very nice photo editting
>>> program.
>>>
>>> Was it supposed to be greyscale, or is PSP's support broken? :-)
>>
>> Try this at 8-bit.
>
>Still grey. Just post a normal JPEG if you want us to see it!
Really. Blimey, you need some updates then I reckon.
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 09:00:15 -0600, "GreyBeard" <r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet>
wrote:
>that. While my other machines have 64 and 128 meg graphic cards, this one
>has a Diamond Stealth, and I don't deem internet use worthy of anything
>higher. (And before you come up with the normal puke, such as "ludite" or
>some such other stupid term, I suggest you email blank checks before telling
>me that I should "upgrade" this box.)
You presume too much. Think again.
>
>Just accept that you're using an oddball format and that expecting everyone
>else to be able to decode, or even recognize that it's there is rather
>stupid.
Well, duh. Any other stunning revelations for us?
And I do not expect everyone to view them. I have merely pointed out
how they can - if the platform allows it.
>
>Oh, BTW, windows bitmap format, and my printer being capable of 1200 DPI, I
>like to be able to push the output to the limits of the printer. I'm also
>fond of printing to the full 11 X 17 that the printer is capable of too. I
>could go 13 X 19 but the paper is too hard to find.
Who cares!? Another one trying to change the subject.
>
>You aren't going to change the world, junior. It may change, but probably
>not at your hand.
Dear me. Where on Earth you get such inflated views? Try cutting down
on the hyperbole and try thinking straight.
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:16:45 +0100, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 19:24:21 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> > Fine. I don't wish to download images you don't want me to see. *plonk*
>>
>> Go on, hide under a shell.
>
>From the fact that you can install everything on your machine how do you
>conclude that it is easy/possible for everyone ?
I don't. As usual, your conclusions are in error.
>
>I'm really impreessed by your obstinacy to be not user-friendly to users of
>your images.
No you are not. You are quick to lie and this is merely just another
token of the malaise to be found here.
>
>ABX
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 09:13:07 -0600, "GreyBeard" <r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet>
wrote:
>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:gj9n40h76tm8sn3l8lqsf3vutoog0v5bon@4ax.com...
>>
>> Sorry you have such a very narrow of such an expressive language.
>>
>Would you like to learn how expressive 44 years in a factory can make the
>language? Sorry dud, but I know some women that could show you how
>expressive it can really be, and how graphic the mental pictures can be.
Well woopie! You know a woman that can swear. Well so what? Does that
make you feel somehow special?
>
>I don't think I'm alone, but your attitude has told me that you don't post
>anything worth making me go through a bunch of hoops to see. A leader of
>men, or a pacesetter, you are not.
What is wrong with you people that you resort to such hyperbole so
easily?
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:00:30 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> > From the fact that you can install everything on your machine how do you
> > conclude that it is easy/possible for everyone ?
>
> I don't. As usual, your conclusions are in error.
You are welcome to give me references to all my wrong conclusions and a ratio
wrong/right conclusions in list of all 6 years of my posting to this server.
followup setup
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:18:50 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
>> IMBJR wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:00:03 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dan P wrote:
>>>>> Until Microsoft builds an image format into their browser, it
>>>>> doesn't stand a chance. Behold, the power of M$!
>>>>
>>>> Paint Shop Pro supports it. $50 for a very nice photo editting
>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> Was it supposed to be greyscale, or is PSP's support broken? :-)
>>>
>>> Try this at 8-bit.
>>
>> Still grey. Just post a normal JPEG if you want us to see it!
>
> Really. Blimey, you need some updates then I reckon.
Yeah you're probably right. I've been looking for something to replace OE
with for a while (it annoys me sometimes), can you recommend something?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For everyone's information, this is a screenshot of what it loads up like on
my PC :-)
Couldn't get the 16-bit version to work, although I suspect it would have
looked identical.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'marbles.jpg' (27 KB)
Preview of image 'marbles.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 09:13:38 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:18:50 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>>
>>> IMBJR wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:00:03 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dan P wrote:
>>>>>> Until Microsoft builds an image format into their browser, it
>>>>>> doesn't stand a chance. Behold, the power of M$!
>>>>>
>>>>> Paint Shop Pro supports it. $50 for a very nice photo editting
>>>>> program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was it supposed to be greyscale, or is PSP's support broken? :-)
>>>>
>>>> Try this at 8-bit.
>>>
>>> Still grey. Just post a normal JPEG if you want us to see it!
>>
>> Really. Blimey, you need some updates then I reckon.
>
>Yeah you're probably right. I've been looking for something to replace OE
>with for a while (it annoys me sometimes), can you recommend something?
Forte Agent is my news tool of choice. That coupled with Infranview.
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:50:37 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>For everyone's information, this is a screenshot of what it loads up like on
>my PC :-)
>
>Couldn't get the 16-bit version to work, although I suspect it would have
>looked identical.
Though this is a screenshot, please do not repost my work in a format
it was not intended for.
>
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:36:28 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> > Couldn't get the 16-bit version to work, although I suspect it would have
> > looked identical.
>
> Though this is a screenshot, please do not repost my work in a format
> it was not intended for.
In other format it would not be possible to see it with
http://news.povray.org/digest/images/
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:02:44 +0100, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:36:28 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> > Couldn't get the 16-bit version to work, although I suspect it would have
>> > looked identical.
>>
>> Though this is a screenshot, please do not repost my work in a format
>> it was not intended for.
>
>In other format it would not be possible to see it with
>http://news.povray.org/digest/images/
Try downloading it from usenet instead and viewing it via a
third-party viewer.
>
>ABX
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:11:47 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> > In other format it would not be possible to see it with
> > http://news.povray.org/digest/images/
>
> Try downloading it from usenet instead and viewing it via a
> third-party viewer.
Usenet does not distribute your images :-(
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:20:41 +0100, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:11:47 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> > In other format it would not be possible to see it with
>> > http://news.povray.org/digest/images/
>>
>> Try downloading it from usenet instead and viewing it via a
>> third-party viewer.
>
>Usenet does not distribute your images :-(
It does - look. I posted another one. This one.
>
>ABX
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:00:08 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> > > > In other format it would not be possible to see it with
> > > > http://news.povray.org/digest/images/
> > >
> > > Try downloading it from usenet instead and viewing it via a
> > > third-party viewer.
> >
> > Usenet does not distribute your images :-(
>
> It does - look. I posted another one. This one.
Let's quote http://groups.google.com/intl/pl/contact/groups.html
"Google Groups is a powerful Usenet discussion forum that gives users complete
access to newsgroup postings and message threads since 1995".
You probably mean some post sended after 1995. Can you give me a reference to
your images through Google Groups ?
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
