 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan P wrote:
>>That is of course _if_ there was hardware to show more than
>>8bits/channel. Did you mean that you have such a videcard?
>
> I actually think I might. I'm not sure -- I know the video card I have is
> pretty beefy and over $400.
Care to tell the brand and the model of it? I'm just curious as I don't
know any 16-bit/channel video card (I'm not caliming that there aren't
any..).
Severi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spam here> wrote in message
news:ns9s405oak9lls0s01ea0m0o00qu5melft@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:24:28 -0600, "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom>
> wrote:
>
<snip />
> >An interesting image. I see why you need the additional color depth. The
> >blue bar on the right might not be as subtle limited to 256 shades.
>
> You really need to read the text that comes with a posting. Read it
> and realise that the 16-bit aspect was a mistake.
In context with the rest of this threads in this group, I can totally
understand why you might think I'm being sarcastic. Because I saw no posts
in the thread yet, I thought it would have a different context but I was
wrong. Lemme explain: I think I understand why you are so concerned about
the color being exact because of your style of art. Most of us are
techno-types so we are thinking in terms of technical merit. Where your art
isn't highly technical, it is very /artistic/ and your use of color appears
to be what you are focussing on. So, when I saw the subtle blue on the
right, I thought, "A person who isn't concerned about the color wouldn't
bother to be that subtle with the blue." I also didn't read the entire other
thread because I'm too busy which is why I kept out of argument -- I still
don't know enough about what is going on.
...I do know, however, it took me all of 2 minutes to install Irfanview and
get the plug-ins...
I think people are failing to appreciate the uniqueness of your art and
judging based solely on technical merit. If I were in your shoes, I would be
just as frustrated. I'm not trying to cause trouble (although sometimes I
am, but in this case no) so please, guys, don't take my words defensively;
I'm seeking to understand IMBJR and the more I /try/ to understand IMBJR,
the more I change my perspective on his work. You gotta admit -- it is very
unique work and, with our help, he will gain in technical skill and make
even more interesting works in the future.
> Wittering on like that makes you look like an ignorant fool.
It's pretty well established I'm an ignorant fool -- in fact, thank you for
your kind words, because there are a few lurking around who would use
stronger words than that! :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Severi Salminen" <sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote in message
news:404e5fac@news.povray.org...
> Dan P wrote:
>
> >>That is of course _if_ there was hardware to show more than
> >>8bits/channel. Did you mean that you have such a videcard?
> >
> > I actually think I might. I'm not sure -- I know the video card I have
is
> > pretty beefy and over $400.
>
>
> Care to tell the brand and the model of it? I'm just curious as I don't
> know any 16-bit/channel video card (I'm not caliming that there aren't
> any..).
>
> Severi
Sure -- it is an NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200. Since it's off-the-shelf (and
probably a year old now) I'm guessing it probably isn't more than 8 bits per
channel, but I don't know much about video cards so I can't speak with any
confidence about anything on this. All I know is that it was damned
expensive new :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sure -- it is an NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200. Since it's off-the-shelf (and
> probably a year old now) I'm guessing it probably isn't more than 8 bits per
> channel, but I don't know much about video cards so I can't speak with any
> confidence about anything on this. All I know is that it was damned
> expensive new :-)
Yeah, I think every consumer videocard are 8bit/channel cards, including
yours - despite the price ;) And most likely most of the pro cards are
also. This might change as now PhotoShop, for example, is beginning to
support 16-bit tools.
Severi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>>> All I know is that it was damned
>>> expensive new :-)
>>
>> Yeah, I think every consumer videocard are 8bit/channel cards,
>
>
> And they're all damned expensive new, too. ;-)
Tell me about it: I upgraded my computer last autumn and bought the
fastest (back then) videocard - Radeon 9800Pro. It was some 400+
euros/dollars. I paid about the same amount for my computer :) But oh,
how smooth are the games now :)
Severi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Severi Salminen" <sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote in message
news:404e672a$1@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
>
> >>> All I know is that it was damned
> >>> expensive new :-)
> >>
> >> Yeah, I think every consumer videocard are 8bit/channel cards,
> >
> >
> > And they're all damned expensive new, too. ;-)
>
> Tell me about it: I upgraded my computer last autumn and bought the
> fastest (back then) videocard - Radeon 9800Pro. It was some 400+
> euros/dollars. I paid about the same amount for my computer :) But oh,
> how smooth are the games now :)
True, it is worth the price just to load up your favorite game and drool for
a few hours :-)
We've had overheating problems (we, meaning my buddies -- they are the
hardware guys, I'm the software guy, so my machine is custom built -- by
somebody else :-) )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Johnson" <chris(at)chris-j(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote in
news:404e5869$1@news.povray.org:
>
> Will IMBJR suffer the same fate, I wonder...
>
>
IIRC, BDW left of his own accord. AFAIK there has been only one person
banned from this server, and it was for much worse abuse. I could be
wrong.
IBMJR has toned down a good bit recently after being directed to
provisions of the AUP. BDW didn't seem to care.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I understand IMBJR in his desire to promote an improved image format, but
compatibility is very important here.
As long as the common news readers and webbrowsers don't support an image
format it's better to stick with tradition.
Top quality images should be in png anyways (or 100% quality jpeg maybe) and
for showing a new render to others the standard jpeg format seems to be
sufficient. I haven't heard anything complain!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in
news:404e77e9$1@news.povray.org:
> I understand IMBJR in his desire to promote an improved image format,
> but compatibility is very important here.
> As long as the common news readers and webbrowsers don't support an
> image format it's better to stick with tradition.
> Top quality images should be in png anyways (or 100% quality jpeg
> maybe) and for showing a new render to others the standard jpeg format
> seems to be sufficient. I haven't heard anything complain!
>
>
Apache >---Preach---->Choir
^
|
^
Tom
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan P wrote:
> True, it is worth the price just to load up your favorite game and drool for
> a few hours :-)
Funny enough, the only time I buy a faster CPU is when the game I
really, really want to play comes out that I can't play with a slower
CPU. And I remember when the Amiga came out, and people said "What,
that? Why'd you buy that? That's just a game machine."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA USA (PST)
I am in geocentric orbit, supported by
a quantum photon exchange drive....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
