 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:32:52 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
