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

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:404ea070$1@news.povray.org...
> 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."

Arrrrgghhh, I have nothing but resentment for the fact that we all don't use
Amigas now. If that machine doesn't prove that having better technology
doesn't mean you will win, nothing does :-( I miss my 500. It made me who I
am today.

Actually, maybe I should have returned it :-)

Post a reply to this message

High!

Severi Salminen schrieb:

> 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.

But will those 48bit graphics be properly displayed on ordinary CRT home particle
accelerators at all?

See you in Khyberspace - http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/khyberspace/index-e.html
Afghanistan Chronicle: http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/index-e.htm
Home-made electronic music: http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/music/

Yadgar ((:->

Now playing: Intergalactic Radio Station (Vangelis)

--
Pashto 2.0, a protocol language for the Advanced Fractal Geometric Heightfield and
Navigation Implementation-Sensitive Texture Analysis Network

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:25:47 -0600, "Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom>
wrote:

>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> 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 had the germ of this notion in my head this morning!

Maybe that's it. Perhaps this place's techincal characteristics are at
the expense of it's potentially more artistic side.

>
>...I do know, however, it took me all of 2 minutes to install Irfanview and
>get the plug-ins...

Exactly.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On 9 Mar 2004 20:28:14 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:

>"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.

Exactly.

>
>IBMJR has toned down a good bit recently after being directed to  
>provisions of the AUP.  BDW didn't seem to care.

This DeWitt you are referring to there? What happened? I always
thought there was something not right about him.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:06:16 +0100, "Apache"
<apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>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!

There are not meant to be top-quality, just better quality. If I had a
better connection I'd post the TIFF - but then again, actually I would
not because that's inappropriate to this venue.

>

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

Find my reply to you on p.off-topic

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:6qtu40196rm8l7bovs53k0dmg1daigabg7@4ax.com...

<snip />

> >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 had the germ of this notion in my head this morning!
>
> Maybe that's it. Perhaps this place's techincal characteristics are at
> the expense of it's potentially more artistic side.

I think you might have a point there. However, things are always shifting
and I think a lot of images that people put up here have been more
artistically slanted lately. It's a great trend. It really shows how POV-Ray
has developed because people are moving beyond trying to get the thing to
work. In a way, it is a testiment to the documentation as well, which I
personally cite as the best documentation I have ever seen (and it is
particularly rare because it is in /no cost/ software!)

-- 
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>

Post a reply to this message