 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tyler Eaves wrote:
> Unless Irfanview is available for linux (Hint: It isn't) I *DO* see a
> problem.
I don't; nobody uses linux anyways, it's a toy operating system. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
we run irfanview using the wine windows emulator and it works a treat
Tyler Eaves wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:58:23 +0000, St. wrote:
>
> Unless Irfanview is available for linux (Hint: It isn't) I *DO* see a
> problem.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I couldn't see it.
LOL, Greg and Lightbeam... your repeated posts are the funniest out of this
whole JPEG2000 thing.
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tyler Eaves wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:58:23 +0000, St. wrote:
>
>
>> Look guys, it took *zilch* time for Irfanview to load this image
>>once the file extension was associated with my newsreader (OE). I
>>really don't see the problem here. Try it for yourselves and see. You
>>just click the filename in the attachment of the post, hit "open it"
>>as per normal, and bingo, image.
>>
>> ~Steve~
>
>
> Unless Irfanview is available for linux (Hint: It isn't) I *DO* see a
> problem.
>
>
I was able to view it with Jasper:
http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I try not to install software I don't need. So could someone give an honest
> opinion as to whether these pictures are good enough to justify downloading a
> viewer?
>
> There seem to have been 3 conversations about JPEG2000 and nobody's yet said if
> the pictures are any good! :)
I'm not going to get into the issue of wether posting JP2's here is
proper or not but if you use Mozilla you don't need a viewer you can get
a plugin here:
http://www.morgan-multimedia.com/JPEG2000/mozilla_plugin.htm?image/j2c
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other things, IMBJR wrote:
>>You could save even more bandwidth by posting just a link to wherever you
>>choose to upload the file.
>
> I'd still get some saying they could not see the file after following
> the link - so thanks for the suggestion, but it's not going to solve
> that particular problem.
Wrong!
Read my post again. I didn't suggest to solve *that* problem, but the
bandwidth problem (which is one of the reasons you're using JPEG2000, you
said). I really think you should read the discussion before you jump with
unrelated answers. ;)
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: we meat - redux [4-bit GIF (Hee, Hee)]
Date: 8 Mar 2004 09:42:25
Message: <404c8651@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spam here> wrote in message
news:nn2n4094eg36ee7ig8jljv9r5bf71r3mcj@4ax.com...
> [Unviewable Image]
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'we_meat_redux_4_bit.gif' (128 KB)
Preview of image 'we_meat_redux_4_bit.gif'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
mra### [at] hotmailcom news:404c8651@news.povray.org
> Attachment saved: C:\PROG\XNEWS\attachments\we_meat_redux_4_bit.gif
Why in the wolrd did You posted in GIF, use PNG instead
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Why in the wolrd did You posted in GIF, use PNG instead
To throw gasoline on the fire of course. :)
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:09:31 +0100, Jellby <jel### [at] M-yahoocom>
wrote:
>Among other things, IMBJR wrote:
>
>>>You could save even more bandwidth by posting just a link to wherever you
>>>choose to upload the file.
>>
>> I'd still get some saying they could not see the file after following
>> the link - so thanks for the suggestion, but it's not going to solve
>> that particular problem.
>
>Wrong!
>
>Read my post again. I didn't suggest to solve *that* problem, but the
>bandwidth problem (which is one of the reasons you're using JPEG2000, you
>said). I really think you should read the discussion before you jump with
>unrelated answers. ;)
Don't be silly. Your parroting back of my arguments just points you
out as another one of the crowd hell bent on being obtuse for
obtuseness sake.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
