 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:16:41 +0100, Alain CULOS wrote:
>Of course it can be a headache maintaining such a version and getting
>complaints from reckless users, but with proper warnings (in the message
>windows when the option is selected for instance as well as in the docs
>and whereever the mention of JPEG is made), well with proper disclaimers
>it should diminish negative feedback.
People read the documentation and the message window? Where are these
people?
>Not all output has to be A1 perfect and not all image maps need to be A1
>accurate. JPEG has positive points as well as negative points, why ignore
>the positive ?
I guess I agree, in principle, and if people want to jpgify their output
they should be able to, but I still think it'd come back to bite whoever
implements it in terms of additional support.
>> Speaking for myself only, of course, as the current maintainer
>> of the superpatch.
>
>Do you really have to maintain and try and fix everything ?
>Can you not delegate the work relating to patches by others to such others
>?
Oh, no, of course I don't. I don't have to support everything, either, as
there are at least a few people in this group who help tremendously with
that, but until I can set up a proper CVS archive and mailing lists, it'd
be more trouble than it's worth to try to coordinate small bugfixes among
more than about two or three people. I still don't see how the POV-Team
does it. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> People read the documentation and the message window? Where are these
> people?
I do and I am right here !
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> People read the documentation and the message window? Where are these
> people?
>
Hey now! >:)
If JPEG output is not a default option, you'd pretty much have to RTFM to enable
it.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not with the Mac, where the output file type is chosen from a menu in
the file preferences dialog.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's what you get for making things too convenient...
Margus
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> Not with the Mac, where the output file type is chosen from a menu in
> the file preferences dialog.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 18:08:20 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peak eduee>
wrote:
>That's what you get for making things too convenient...
>
>Margus
>
>Chris Huff wrote:
>>
>> Not with the Mac, where the output file type is chosen from a menu in
>> the file preferences dialog.
I smell the kerosene and hear the roar of the flamethrowers already...
Please don't... please...
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 18:08:20 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee>
> wrote:
>
> >That's what you get for making things too convenient...
> >
> >Margus
> >
> >Chris Huff wrote:
> >>
> >> Not with the Mac, where the output file type is chosen from a menu in
> >> the file preferences dialog.
>
> I smell the kerosene and jear the roar of the flamethrowers already...
> Please don't... please...
>
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700
I choose my Mac's from a menu but that is at the MacDonalds resturant :)
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why? I'm just stating a common fact: you make things convenient, people get
lazy. That is why most M$ users know zilch abouth the machine they're using. I
honestly don't know about the Mac users.
Anybody: was my post offending? If so, I'm sorry.
Margus
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> I smell the kerosene and hear the roar of the flamethrowers already...
> Please don't... please...
>
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 03:49:42 +0300, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee>
wrote:
>Why? I'm just stating a common fact: you make things convenient, people get
>lazy. That is why most M$ users know zilch abouth the machine they're using. I
>honestly don't know about the Mac users.
>Anybody: was my post offending? If so, I'm sorry.
>
>Margus
Not to me it wasn't. I just remembered an old flame war that one of my
General Computing teachers and I used to have when I was in
high-school. She was a diehard Mac user and I was a DOS user (and
later 95), so I thought some of the Mac users might get picky. It's
better to prevent fire now than fight it with fire later, right?
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:16:41 +0100, Alain CULOS <ZAl### [at] bigfootcom>
wrote:
>Of course it can be a headache maintaining such a version and getting
>complaints from reckless users, but with proper warnings (in the message
>windows when the option is selected for instance as well as in the docs
>and whereever the mention of JPEG is made), well with proper disclaimers
>it should diminish negative feedback.
Hi, Al. The worst-case scenario of a long render time combined with an
inferior JPEG quality setting is very likely to occur, IMO. Here's why -
some JPEG artifacts may be difficult to see at lower test resolutions but
show up in the final render resolution, and there is not one overall ideal
setting for JPEG quality that will work for all scenes. I foresee having a
bottle of Extra-Strength Tylenol handy.
Documentation is only as good as the time put into reading the thing. Yes,
it'll reduce the complaints of poor output quality but won't eliminate it.
In the past, I have fielded a question posted by novices. What they said
was, "I have just downloaded POV-Ray. How do I make a 3d image?" This is not
to say that they are not intelligent people but perhaps it illustrates their
inexperience with computer software in general.
>JPEG has positive points as well as negative points, why ignore
>the positive ?
I like JPEG. I use JPEG. A lot. But, for me personally, I prefer to output
.png (PiNG) and then use my third-party software to convert the image to
JPEG. I am free to experiment with the quality settings, as well as compare
the JPEG output of Paint Shop Pro to CompuPic, in the search for the best
result. It takes a matter of seconds (not hours or days) to convert a 1024w
by 768h .png to JPEG of any quality, so I can check out a dozen image
conversions very fast. However, if one chooses the wrong JPEG quality
setting for (unofficial) POV-Ray output, there's not much they can do. You
can't take an inferior image and make it better. For some people, we are
talking anywhere from a few hours to a few days of rendering time that would
be wasted.
In no way should my opinion be construed as a put-down to the author of
the unofficial compile, nor of the JPEG file format. I simply have
reservations about incorporating JPEG output (input is another matter) in
the official POV-Ray.
respectfully,
--
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
