 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'marbles.jp2' (99 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in JPEG 2000 ? I can't see it :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam wrote:
> in JPEG 2000 ? I can't see it :-(
me neither
$ identify marbles.jp2
Note: The JasPer software only partially implements the JPEG-2000
JP2 file format. More specifically, JasPer does not provide
a fully conforming JP2 decoder as defined in ISO/IEC 15444-1
(i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). Therefore, the JP2 support in JasPer
is provided for informational purposes only and is not meant to
represent a complete and fully conforming JP2 implementation.
marbles.jp2 JP2 1000x300 DirectClass 16-bit 98kb 0.6u 0:01
--
Bill Hails
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:47:50 +0100, "LightBeam" <s.f### [at] tiscali fr>
wrote:
>in JPEG 2000 ? I can't see it :-(
>
Infranview with appropriate plugin is a free option available for
viewing JPEG2000 files.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >in JPEG 2000 ? I can't see it :-(
> >
> Infranview with appropriate plugin is a free option available for
> viewing JPEG2000 files.
And Irfanview with an appropriate plugin shouldn't be required to view
images on these groups...
I, for one am not going to install it.
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And Irfanview with an appropriate plugin shouldn't be required to view
> images on these groups...
I would feel the same way except that JPEG 2000 has been out for a while now
(hasn't it?) and it's absurd that image editors/viewers don't support it
yet. =(
Nonetheless, it is true that very few people are actually going to install
something to view an image, so the format's uselessness will likely
continue...
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I couldn't see it.
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:1qbf4053e0q04qifcrt7nts9avefvo5egk@4ax.com...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
no### [at] spamhere news:1qbf4053e0q04qifcrt7nts9avefvo5egk@4ax.com
Didnt see it
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message
news:4047c355$1@news.povray.org...
> > And Irfanview with an appropriate plugin shouldn't be required to view
> > images on these groups...
>
> I would feel the same way except that JPEG 2000 has been out for a while
now
> (hasn't it?) and it's absurd that image editors/viewers don't support it
> yet. =(
>
> Nonetheless, it is true that very few people are actually going to install
> something to view an image, so the format's uselessness will likely
> continue...
Until Microsoft builds an image format into their browser, it doesn't stand
a chance. Behold, the power of M$!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:58:18 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> > in JPEG 2000 ? I can't see it :-(
>
> Infranview with appropriate plugin is a free option available for
> viewing JPEG2000 files.
my Irfanview with full set of plugins could not display it :-(
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Hails wrote:
> me neither
> $ identify marbles.jp2
> Note: The JasPer software only partially implements the JPEG-2000
> JP2 file format. More specifically, JasPer does not provide
> a fully conforming JP2 decoder as defined in ISO/IEC 15444-1
> (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). Therefore, the JP2 support in JasPer
> is provided for informational purposes only and is not meant to
> represent a complete and fully conforming JP2 implementation.
> marbles.jp2 JP2 1000x300 DirectClass 16-bit 98kb 0.6u 0:01
>
JasPer Image Viewer (jiv) 1.701.0 does the job, but like someone said,
jp2 might not be the best format to use. They stuffed too many things in
the standard, so making a fully functional codec isn't something you do
just for fun.
-r
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote
What's the point of posting in JPEG2000?
Huge majority (incl I) doesn't have a viewer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote in message
news:v79g401smahnhmjmohie0ikk09r3rfpfij@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:58:18 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> > > in JPEG 2000 ? I can't see it :-(
> >
> > Infranview with appropriate plugin is a free option available for
> > viewing JPEG2000 files.
>
> my Irfanview with full set of plugins could not display it :-(
Using Win XP, my IrfanView 3.80 does display :) Have you got the
latest version?
Alf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:1qbf4053e0q04qifcrt7nts9avefvo5egk@4ax.com...
Unusual aspect ratio but looks right for this simple scene. I love
glass objects and I love these marbles.
Viewed with IrfanView 3.80, but not OE 6.0 or PSPro 7.
Alf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, that was actually worth scrolling down for. Thanks for the
translation, Shay, and thanks for the image, IMBJR.
Although, yesterday, when shopping at a discount store, I noticed
something very disturbing. The marbles they had for sale there were all
clear (internally), with the designs painted on the surface (shudder!)
Dave Matthews
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'marbles_8bit.jp2' (99 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 04:03:44 -0700, "Jason F. Kowalski"
<jfk### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote
>
>What's the point of posting in JPEG2000?
In this case, preservation of the 16-bit output of POV.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 04:03:44 -0700, "Jason F. Kowalski"
<jfk### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote
>
>What's the point of posting in JPEG2000?
>
>Huge majority (incl I) doesn't have a viewer.
>
PS. There's also 16-bit PNG, but in this case I chose JPEG2000.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:56:32 -0600, Dave Matthews
<dma### [at] nospamnet> wrote:
>Well, that was actually worth scrolling down for. Thanks for the
>translation, Shay, and thanks for the image, IMBJR.
>
>Although, yesterday, when shopping at a discount store, I noticed
>something very disturbing. The marbles they had for sale there were all
>clear (internally), with the designs painted on the surface (shudder!)
Oh my god, what has the world come to? Marbles are almost a joy to
look at; if they are merely painted. WTF.
>
>Dave Matthews
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:58:17 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:
>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:1qbf4053e0q04qifcrt7nts9avefvo5egk@4ax.com...
>
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bouquet.gif' (16 KB)
Preview of image 'bouquet.gif'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:58:17 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> 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?
FWIW, Most people aren't even going to be able to see the difference in the
16bit/Component color as opposed to 8bit/C color. So, why not just post it
as a standard jpg and save people who may not be compatible with a lesser
known format.
I don't necessarily think the posting of a standard JPG is nearly as bad as
posting a "4 colour GIF". People use a wide variety of OSes on these groups
(remember, POV-Ray is multi-platform), some may not have access to tools to
view a JPEG2000 file.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:58:17 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> >news:1qbf4053e0q04qifcrt7nts9avefvo5egk@4ax.com...
> >
>
> 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?
You have a fair point, but at the end of the day Imjer, we want to
see an image, not *hunt* for the damned thing!
Heh, I tried... and failed... ;)
I understand your point of view, but you could have easily
explained what you wanted to achieve, and post a link for a webpage
somewhere - I am aware that you can do this, so there's no excuse on
your part.
It's Friday evening, have a drink on me. :o)
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com> , IMBJR
<no### [at] spamhere> 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?
Shay did an appropriate thing to allow others to view your image. This
obviously is in your interest if you are at all interested in sharing your
image with others - and you would not post it here is you were not
interested in sharing it.
Please note that you broke etiquette of these groups by posting in a not
widely supported format for no benefit whatsoever. Your claim about
introducing artifacts that deface your image is ridiculous. You are free to
put your images on a website in any format you wish, but *please* try to
avoid posting in formats most people in these groups cannot view without
hassle.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:07:59 -0600, "Mike Raiford"
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:58:17 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> 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?
>
>FWIW, Most people aren't even going to be able to see the difference in the
>16bit/Component color as opposed to 8bit/C color. So, why not just post it
>as a standard jpg and save people who may not be compatible with a lesser
>known format.
Two words: gradient banding - and people can see it. Since POV is
capable of 16-bit colour depth I chose to utilise it and keep that
depth for the on-line version too.
However, how a particular piece of software or hardware device
displays a 16-bit image is another matter which is pretty much out of
my hands. Even with a 16-bit image, some platforms may introduce
banding as they attempt to display the image in a reduced depth.
Still, at least with a 16-bit colour depth image, the gradient-banding
reduction intent is there.
>
>I don't necessarily think the posting of a standard JPG is nearly as bad as
>posting a "4 colour GIF".
Perhaps not, but the reposted image looked horrible compared to the
way I prepared it. I do not think it was a good idea to repost the
image in a manner that detracted from the original.
>People use a wide variety of OSes on these groups
>(remember, POV-Ray is multi-platform), some may not have access to tools to
>view a JPEG2000 file.
Different strokes yadda yadda. If you can see it, fine - if you
cannot, fine. I have merely presented the image in the manner in which
I intended it to be.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:16:54 -0000, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 08:58:17 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>> >news:1qbf4053e0q04qifcrt7nts9avefvo5egk@4ax.com...
>> >
>>
>> 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?
>
> You have a fair point, but at the end of the day Imjer, we want to
>see an image, not *hunt* for the damned thing!
This is true, but at least I hope I'm making an effort to use new
formats. We cannot just sit still.
>
> Heh, I tried... and failed... ;)
>
> I understand your point of view, but you could have easily
>explained what you wanted to achieve, and post a link for a webpage
>somewhere - I am aware that you can do this, so there's no excuse on
>your part.
I don't oridinarily explain my material. However, if someone asks,
then I will explain.
>
> It's Friday evening, have a drink on me. :o)
I'm having a Stella. Cheers.
>
> ~Steve~
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:28:53 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>In article <3eoh40p2s9jd1t8o03thoj1iv5i4jo12b0@4ax.com> , IMBJR
><no### [at] spamhere> 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?
>
>Shay did an appropriate thing to allow others to view your image. This
Without my permission and in a manner that detracted from the
original.
>obviously is in your interest if you are at all interested in sharing your
>image with others - and you would not post it here is you were not
>interested in sharing it.
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.
>
>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. Otherwise, you are merely projecting you own desires as to
how one should "behave".
>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.
>put your images on a website in any format you wish, but *please* try to
>avoid posting in formats most people in these groups cannot view without
>hassle.
If you cannot keep up with image format developments, I suggest you
remain quiet on the subject.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'marbles_comparision.png' (119 KB)
Preview of image 'marbles_comparision.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:54:45 -0000, Jamie Davison
<jam### [at] dslpipexcom> wrote:
>> >in JPEG 2000 ? I can't see it :-(
>> >
>> Infranview with appropriate plugin is a free option available for
>> viewing JPEG2000 files.
>
>And Irfanview with an appropriate plugin shouldn't be required to view
>images on these groups...
>
>I, for one am not going to install it.
>
>Jamie.
right on! The original poster should post normal
standard jpeg, or not post at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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. 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
