"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