 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MegaPov 0.5a is now available for Windows and Mac (other versions will
follow from other developers).
PLEASE NOTE: GIF support has been removed due to the Unisys patent on LZW
decompression. Please view the link at the end of this message if you want
to read what Unisys has to say about licensing.
The Windows version can be downloaded from:
http://nathan.kopp.com/patched.htm
The Macintosh version can be downloaded from:
http://users.skynet.be/smellenbergh
-Nathan
=== summary of changes ===
* removed GIF support (potential legal issues regarding the Unisys patent)
* fixed docs for pigment_pattern
* fixed disc problems (removed fastdiscpatch)
* fixed long filename support in the Windows version
* fixed interface-related bugs (Windows version moved to 3.1g interface)
* fixed bug with photons on average texture
* fixed bug with media method 3 when samples = 1
* fixed bug with parsing backwards compatibility and unofficial version
number
* added fastspherepatch
* added fastpolypatch
* fixed "bug" with mesh (MegaPov did not ignore degenerate triangles if uv
mapping was used in the triangle)
* fixed bug with ttf
* fixed bug with csqr
Here is the reason why GIF support has been removed:
http://www.unisys.com/unisys/lzw/default.asp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> MegaPov 0.5a is now available for Windows and Mac (other versions will
> follow from other developers).
Excellent. Thanks again Nathan. Your efforts to maintain the program are
appreciated. God bless you.
>
> PLEASE NOTE: GIF support has been removed due to the Unisys patent on LZW
> decompression. Please view the link at the end of this message if you want
> to read what Unisys has to say about licensing.
Unisys idiots. They're diggin' their own grave. No problem. We'll just use
PNG then.
I'm off to download...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] panama c-comnet> wrote...
> Unisys idiots. They're diggin' their own grave. No problem. We'll just use
> PNG then.
I'm glad you feel that way and I hope the other users will also understand.
Removing GIF functionality was a difficult decision to make, be we ended up
deciding to play it safe and not risk any lawsuits.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom> wrote in message
news:3936d047@news.povray.org...
> MegaPov 0.5a is now available for Windows and Mac (other versions will
> follow from other developers).
>
> PLEASE NOTE: GIF support has been removed due to the Unisys patent on LZW
> decompression.
I have found Perl subroutines to
find out height and width of GIF and JPG.
As soon as I find such a subroutine
also for PNG, I change all my web sites.
--
Mösl Roland http://www.pege.org
Clear targets for a confused civilization
http://www.BeingFound.com
web design and seminars
+43 699 17343674
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So PNG rules now ??? ...
--
,', Jan Walzer \V/ http://wa.lzer.net ,',
',',' student of >|< mailto:jan### [at] lzernet ',','
' ComputerScience /A\ +49-177-7403863 '
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
> Tony[B] <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote...
> > Unisys idiots. They're diggin' their own grave. No problem. We'll just use
> > PNG then.
>
> I'm glad you feel that way and I hope the other users will also understand.
> Removing GIF functionality was a difficult decision to make, be we ended up
> deciding to play it safe and not risk any lawsuits.
Was this a POV-Team decision or simply that of a patch writer ?
I for one will greatly miss the gif format if it is lost in the
official versions of the program.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Tony[B] <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote...
> > > Unisys idiots. They're diggin' their own grave. No problem. We'll just use
> > > PNG then.
> >
> > I'm glad you feel that way and I hope the other users will also understand.
> > Removing GIF functionality was a difficult decision to make, be we ended up
> > deciding to play it safe and not risk any lawsuits.
>
> Was this a POV-Team decision or simply that of a patch writer ?
>
> I for one will greatly miss the gif format if it is lost in the
> official versions of the program.
Me too. As it is the only format with which I have been able to make
heightfields with the Gimp.
But even the Gimp only provide GIF support if you have purchased a
license from Unisys. (Actually, they take your word for it, but you
wouldn't lie would you?)
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreq | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
attglobal.net - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.general Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
: * removed GIF support (potential legal issues regarding the Unisys patent)
I personally don't mind this.
Actually that patenting nonsense is so irritating that this kind of
"boicot" feels only good.
I will not miss gif support. Most programs nowadays support png, which is
better in every way (and AFAIK compresses better than gif).
Now, some people may want some (still) free utilities to convert gifs to
pngs. Anyone know of any?
And btw (to someone posting about gimp), gimp supports png. I don't see
the problem.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3937753c@news.povray.org...
| In povray.general Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
| : * removed GIF support (potential legal issues regarding the Unisys patent)
|
| I personally don't mind this.
| Actually that patenting nonsense is so irritating that this kind of
| "boycot" feels only good.
| I will not miss gif support. Most programs nowadays support png, which is
| better in every way (and AFAIK compresses better than gif).
Only annoyance to me would be the batch converting and then changing every
gif-containing scene file I have. No small thing, but then if it can't be
helped I can muddle through okay.
I also have to mention that someone I know of was using 16-bit Gif in POV-Ray
but I never have so I don't understand it's format. Was from a Fractint
output I believe, well actually I have no idea anymore.
Funny thing, I just looked at the Fractint home page and came across this
there:
http://burnallgifs.org/ Apparently all about this stuff being talked of.
| Now, some people may want some (still) free utilities to convert gifs to
| pngs. Anyone know of any?
IrfanView does great: http://stud1.tuwien.ac.at/~e9227474/english.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote...
>
> Now, some people may want some (still) free utilities to convert gifs to
> pngs. Anyone know of any?
The MegaPov docs have two links (for unix and windows users).
> And btw (to someone posting about gimp), gimp supports png. I don't see
> the problem.
POV also does support palletes for PNG files, so any of those features (like
"filter <index>") will still work if you use PNG.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in...
>
> Was this a POV-Team decision or simply that of a patch writer ?
I made the decision myself after reading the Unisys statement very
carefully. Because I am one of the primary distributers of MegaPov in the
U.S., I felt that this was necessary to protect myself form any negative
legal action. This decision was also supported by Smellenbergh, since a
patent on LZW is also recognized in many European countries. I can't speak
for the POV-Team at this moment, but I will say that the topic has been
discussed.
> I for one will greatly miss the gif format if it is lost in the
> official versions of the program.
I understand. Unfortunately, we may be left with little other choice, given
the current state of LZW licensing.
-Nathan Kopp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
> Tony[B] <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote...
> > Unisys idiots. They're diggin' their own grave. No problem. We'll just use
> > PNG then.
>
> I'm glad you feel that way and I hope the other users will also understand.
> Removing GIF functionality was a difficult decision to make, be we ended up
> deciding to play it safe and not risk any lawsuits.
>
> -Nathan
In the process of making the "french docs project" (which is not a
simple translation), I decided to ban the use of GIF's for
illustrations,
in favour of PNG, being aware of the unisys issue.
There's much more interesting info at
www.burnallgifs.org
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 23:25:00 +0200, "Mösl Roland" <fou### [at] pegeorg>
wrote:
>I have found Perl subroutines to
>find out height and width of GIF and JPG.
>
>As soon as I find such a subroutine
>also for PNG, I change all my web sites.
Try the PerlMagick modules from ImageMagick.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cool! Now my photon mapping image works again :)
And the source code compiled without problems (after converting CR/LF's).
Very good.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3936DD51.984F52EA@pacbell.net>, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet>
wrote:
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Tony[B] <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote...
> > > Unisys idiots. They're diggin' their own grave. No problem. We'll just use
> > > PNG then.
> >
> > I'm glad you feel that way and I hope the other users will also understand.
> > Removing GIF functionality was a difficult decision to make, be we ended up
> > deciding to play it safe and not risk any lawsuits.
>
> Was this a POV-Team decision or simply that of a patch writer ?
>
> I for one will greatly miss the gif format if it is lost in the
> official versions of the program.
Me too, I hope they'll keep it in the official versions...
Anton
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Anton Raves wrote:
> Me too, I hope they'll keep it in the official versions...
> Anton
It may not be such a problem, since everything that can be done in POV with a GIF
looks like it can be done with a PNG file, including the possibility of filtering a
colour on the basis of its index number in the palette. The main immediate problem
could be the lack of (or poor) support of the various PNG flavours (the palette
version and the alpha-channel version) by some common freeware, shareware and
low-cost image processors.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> And btw (to someone posting about gimp), gimp supports png. I don't see
> the problem.
My problem is that I have been (so far) unable to use images made from
the Gimp as heightfield unless I used grayscaled GIFs.
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreq | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
attglobal.net - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote in message <393786d4@news.povray.org>...
>I also have to mention that someone I know of was using 16-bit Gif in
POV-Ray
>but I never have so I don't understand it's format. Was from a Fractint
>output I believe, well actually I have no idea anymore.
That's the .pot format. There are exactly two programs in the world that
support it: POV-Ray, and Fractint.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Alessandro Coppo
Subject: Re: Announce: MegaPov 0.5a available.
Date: 3 Jun 2000 02:31:09
Message: <3938A752.3E308FEF@iol.it>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Anton Raves wrote:
>
> > Me too, I hope they'll keep it in the official versions...
> > Anton
>
> It may not be such a problem, since everything that can be done in POV with a GIF
> looks like it can be done with a PNG file, including the possibility of filtering a
> colour on the basis of its index number in the palette. The main immediate problem
> could be the lack of (or poor) support of the various PNG flavours (the palette
> version and the alpha-channel version) by some common freeware, shareware and
> low-cost image processors.
PNG DOES everything GIF does but for animated GIF's (which are supported by MNG).
Plus,
PNG does a lot more (just read the documentation about sophisticated image compression
preprocessing for one example).
PNG is supported by rel 4 browsers (IE4 supports it, there is just a problem: you can
add and IMG tag to a page but for unknown reasons drag-dropping the PNG file is not
supported, so many people think IE4 is not PNG aware).
GIMP works beautifully with PNGs.
Last but not least, PNG is supported by free and open source libraries (batteries not
included...)
Bye!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
> That's the .pot format. There are exactly two programs in the world that
> support it: POV-Ray, and Fractint.
Make that at least three: I was able to convert a .pot file to PNG in
the GIMP.
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Announce: MegaPov 0.5a available.
Date: 3 Jun 2000 07:56:04
Message: <3938f254@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3938A752.3E308FEF@iol.it> , Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit>
wrote:
> PNG is supported by rel 4 browsers (IE4 supports it, there is just a problem:
> you can add and IMG tag to a page but for unknown reasons drag-dropping the
> PNG file is not supported, so many people think IE4 is not PNG aware).
This is only correct for IE 4 for Windows, IE 4 for Mac OS does not support
it at all (but IE 5 does).
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Matthew Bennett
Subject: Re: Announce: MegaPov 0.5a available.
Date: 3 Jun 2000 09:44:59
Message: <39390bdb@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> MegaPov 0.5a is now available for Windows and Mac (other versions will
> follow from other developers).
Woohoo! - thanks:)
The updated win32 3.1g interface is the icing on the cake:)
> PLEASE NOTE: GIF support has been removed due to the Unisys patent on LZW
> decompression. Please view the link at the end of this message if you
want
This doesn't bother me at all, and serves them right that such a popular
graphics program (or at least a popular patch of one;) should drop their
format because of their ridiculous legal issues.
Matt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The banner on top of that Unisys page is a gif image. If Unisys has not
licensed itself, it will have to sue itself! ;)
Brendan Ryan
Nathan Kopp wrote:
> MegaPov 0.5a is now available for Windows and Mac (other versions will
> follow from other developers).
>
> PLEASE NOTE: GIF support has been removed due to the Unisys patent on LZW
> decompression. Please view the link at the end of this message if you want
> to read what Unisys has to say about licensing.
>
> The Windows version can be downloaded from:
> http://nathan.kopp.com/patched.htm
>
> The Macintosh version can be downloaded from:
> http://users.skynet.be/smellenbergh
>
> -Nathan
>
> === summary of changes ===
> * removed GIF support (potential legal issues regarding the Unisys patent)
> * fixed docs for pigment_pattern
> * fixed disc problems (removed fastdiscpatch)
> * fixed long filename support in the Windows version
> * fixed interface-related bugs (Windows version moved to 3.1g interface)
> * fixed bug with photons on average texture
> * fixed bug with media method 3 when samples = 1
> * fixed bug with parsing backwards compatibility and unofficial version
> number
> * added fastspherepatch
> * added fastpolypatch
> * fixed "bug" with mesh (MegaPov did not ignore degenerate triangles if uv
> mapping was used in the triangle)
> * fixed bug with ttf
> * fixed bug with csqr
>
> Here is the reason why GIF support has been removed:
> http://www.unisys.com/unisys/lzw/default.asp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have used Paintshop Pro to look at them, but only after
changing *.pot to *.gif
Mark Gordon wrote:
>
> Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> > That's the .pot format. There are exactly two programs in the world that
> > support it: POV-Ray, and Fractint.
>
> Make that at least three: I was able to convert a .pot file to PNG in
> the GIMP.
>
> -Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3938985b@news.povray.org>, "Mark Wagner"
<mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
> That's the .pot format. There are exactly two programs in the world that
> support it: POV-Ray, and Fractint.
GraphicConverter(a Mac image editor) will open them, but it seems(at
first glance, anyway) to treat them as ordinary GIF images.
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Alessandro Coppo
Subject: Re: Announce: MegaPov 0.5a available.
Date: 4 Jun 2000 02:57:34
Message: <3939FF03.9F945FD6@iol.it>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If I am asking an old question, please forgive me.
How much MegaPOV is going to look like Povray 3.5? I mean, if I write MegaPOV
code today I am going to throw out everything or we can expect minor
modifications which can be quickly performed?
The obvious reason for asking this question is that should MegaPOV be quite
similar to Pov3.5 I am going to adopt it right away otherwise I prefer to way
for 3.5.
Thanks in advance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank you!! I would have traded gif support for any one of those fixes!
--
ICQ 74734588
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: "Bob Hughes" <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3937753c@news.povray.org...
> | Now, some people may want some (still) free utilities to convert gifs
> | to pngs. Anyone know of any?
>
> IrfanView does great: http://stud1.tuwien.ac.at/~e9227474/english.htm
You can always go to http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/gif2png/
The source is available and should work for Dos, Unix, Linux and Windows.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.unofficial.patches Alessandro Coppo <a.coppo@iol.it> wrote:
: The obvious reason for asking this question is that should MegaPOV be quite
: similar to Pov3.5 I am going to adopt it right away otherwise I prefer to way
: for 3.5.
AFAIK many megapov features will be very similar (if not identical) in
pov3.5, but not every single feature will be included, so be aware of that.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> In article <3938985b@news.povray.org>, "Mark Wagner"
> <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>
> > That's the .pot format. There are exactly two programs in the world that
> > support it: POV-Ray, and Fractint.
>
> GraphicConverter(a Mac image editor) will open them, but it seems(at
> first glance, anyway) to treat them as ordinary GIF images.
Actually the .pot format _is_ in gif format. The pictures are only twice
as width as the original picture, because the high 8 bits of the 16bit
picture are stored in the second half of the picture.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't think that loss of GIF is that bad. I, for one, never use GIF
with POV. It supports only 8 bit color. And why is PNG the only other
option? What about PICT? It's a great format. Or JPEG? Why does anyone use
GIF anyway?
David McCabe
dav### [at] maccom
> From: Anybody <any### [at] nirvananet>
> Newsgroups:
> povray.general,povray.macintosh,povray.unofficial.patches,povray.windows
> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 12:22:56 +0200
> Subject: Re: Announce: MegaPov 0.5a available.
>
> Chris Huff wrote:
>>
>> In article <3938985b@news.povray.org>, "Mark Wagner"
>> <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>>
>>> That's the .pot format. There are exactly two programs in the world that
>>> support it: POV-Ray, and Fractint.
>>
>> GraphicConverter(a Mac image editor) will open them, but it seems(at
>> first glance, anyway) to treat them as ordinary GIF images.
>
> Actually the .pot format _is_ in gif format. The pictures are only twice
> as width as the original picture, because the high 8 bits of the 16bit
> picture are stored in the second half of the picture.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 14:44:01 -0700, David <dav### [at] maccom> wrote:
> And why is PNG the only other option? What about PICT?
PICT is primarily a "Mac" format. PNG is far more cross-patform, and
is designed specifically to be a superior replacement for the GIF
format.
>Or JPEG?
JPEG is certainly useful, but it is too lossy and has too many
artifacts for many people's needs.
PNG is lossless. PNG files can also be created as true-color images,
or with palettes, similar to GIF palette-based images. JPEG images
can't be created as palette-based images. Palette-based images
actually have their uses in POV-Ray, especially as input-images.
>Why does anyone use GIF anyway?
There are some "input-file" applications that only work well with GIF.
Certain types of filtering, in their use as image_maps, for example. I
don't think PNG's behaved in exactly the same manner in all cases, but
the exact details of the descrepancies escape my memory at the moment.
Later,
Glen Berry
7no### [at] ezwvcom
(Remove the "7" to reply via email.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrea Ryan wrote:
> The banner on top of that Unisys page is a gif image. If Unisys has not
> licensed itself, it will have to sue itself! ;)
What's funny is it says, "We eat, sleep and drink this stuff" and then there's
pages and pages of legal issues and licensing info... yeah, they eat, sleep and
drink that all right.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Did Unisys even make the GIF format? I've never heard of that before.
Who even is Unisys?
> From: David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet>
> Newsgroups:
> povray.general,povray.macintosh,povray.unofficial.patches,povray.windows
> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 16:51:26 -0500
> Subject: Re: Announce: MegaPov 0.5a available.
>
> Andrea Ryan wrote:
>
>> The banner on top of that Unisys page is a gif image. If Unisys has not
>> licensed itself, it will have to sue itself! ;)
>
> What's funny is it says, "We eat, sleep and drink this stuff" and then there's
> pages and pages of legal issues and licensing info... yeah, they eat, sleep
> and
> drink that all right.
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David wrote:
> Did Unisys even make the GIF format?
CompuServe made the GIF format, using an algorithm that they did not
realize had been patented by a company that had subsequently been
purchased by Unisys. Had CompuServe known the algorithm was encumbered
by a patent, they probably would have chosen a different algorithm.
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3938f254@news.povray.org>, Thorsten Froehlich
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> In article <3938A752.3E308FEF@iol.it> , Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit>
> wrote:
>
> > PNG is supported by rel 4 browsers (IE4 supports it, there is just a
> > problem:
> > you can add and IMG tag to a page but for unknown reasons drag-dropping the
> > PNG file is not supported, so many people think IE4 is not PNG aware).
>
> This is only correct for IE 4 for Windows, IE 4 for Mac OS does not support
> it at all (but IE 5 does).
>
>
> Thorsten
How about Netscape...?
Anton
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Announce: MegaPov 0.5a available.
Date: 8 Jun 2000 14:52:34
Message: <393feb72@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <080620001739487380%a.r### [at] directa2000nl> , Anton Raves
<a.r### [at] directa2000nl> wrote:
>> This is only correct for IE 4 for Windows, IE 4 for Mac OS does not support
>> it at all (but IE 5 does).
>>
>>
>> Thorsten
>
> How about Netscape...?
In some higher 4.0x (4.04?) or so minimal support is integrated, on the Mac,
and on all other platforms as well, I guess.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> * fixed interface-related bugs (Windows version moved to 3.1g interface)
I still get lines of garbage in the message window, but the about box says
3.1g, could you have mixed up some files? Can anyone confirm this?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jetlag wrote:
> > * fixed interface-related bugs (Windows version moved to 3.1g interface)
>
> I still get lines of garbage in the message window, but the about box says
> 3.1g, could you have mixed up some files? Can anyone confirm this?
I only get the garbage using blue rock but not any of the other backgrounds
BTW I looked a MegaPOV.exe with a resource ripper & the blue rock bitmap has ~
4 lines of pixels where the blue is all the same colour and about 1/3 -1/2 the
way across the next line is also like this.
I also checked pvengine.exe & my home custom compile but neither had these
artifacts - So maybe Nathan should redownload the win3.1g src archive & make
sure the bitmap he compiles with is the correct one & has no artifacts.
BTW this still doesn't explain the colours I see - sometimes all one colour
(black/white/others), sometimes pinks, blue, grey & others - tiled pattern
Bye
Pabs
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I did like someone had suggested and updated Internet Explorer to the latest
non-beta version and haven't seen anything go wrong since, along with using
the WinMegaPov 0.5a version.
Guess you're using NT, Pabs? And Jetlag, a beta of IE or something? May be
specific troubles to those.
I also tried to see if I could "soft-crash" MegaPov just now by doing Selected
Area renders over and over again. 100+ times and all fine. I've been wanting
to try counting that before.
Bob
"Pabs" <pab### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:39408314.89A734AF@hotmail.com...
| Jetlag wrote:
|
| > > * fixed interface-related bugs (Windows version moved to 3.1g interface)
| >
| > I still get lines of garbage in the message window, but the about box says
| > 3.1g, could you have mixed up some files? Can anyone confirm this?
|
| I only get the garbage using blue rock but not any of the other backgrounds
| BTW I looked a MegaPOV.exe with a resource ripper & the blue rock bitmap has
~
| 4 lines of pixels where the blue is all the same colour and about 1/3 -1/2
the
| way across the next line is also like this.
| I also checked pvengine.exe & my home custom compile but neither had these
| artifacts - So maybe Nathan should redownload the win3.1g src archive & make
| sure the bitmap he compiles with is the correct one & has no artifacts.
| BTW this still doesn't explain the colours I see - sometimes all one colour
| (black/white/others), sometimes pinks, blue, grey & others - tiled pattern
|
| Bye
| Pabs
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I only get the garbage using blue rock but not any of the other
backgrounds
> BTW I looked a MegaPOV.exe with a resource ripper & the blue rock bitmap
has ~
> 4 lines of pixels where the blue is all the same colour and about 1/3 -1/2
the
> way across the next line is also like this.
> I also checked pvengine.exe & my home custom compile but neither had these
> artifacts - So maybe Nathan should redownload the win3.1g src archive &
make
> sure the bitmap he compiles with is the correct one & has no artifacts.
> BTW this still doesn't explain the colours I see - sometimes all one
colour
> (black/white/others), sometimes pinks, blue, grey & others - tiled pattern
Hey, I think you're right. It appears as though the blue rock bitmap is
corrupted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When this HooHa started I was under the impression that the algorithm
was patented _after_ CS produced the GIF format but before Unisys was
involved. I was wrong?
--
Alf
http://www.peake42.freeserve.co.uk/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Alf_Peake/
Mark Gordon <mtg### [at] mailbagcom> wrote in message
news:393EE7E5.84E8A8E6@mailbag.com...
> David wrote:
>
> > Did Unisys even make the GIF format?
>
> CompuServe made the GIF format, using an algorithm that they did not
> realize had been patented by a company that had subsequently been
> purchased by Unisys. Had CompuServe known the algorithm was
encumbered
> by a patent, they probably would have chosen a different algorithm.
>
> -Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alf Peake wrote:
>
> When this HooHa started I was under the impression that the algorithm
> was patented _after_ CS produced the GIF format but before Unisys was
> involved. I was wrong?
Digging out books...
1984 - LZW compression invented and written up in IEEE Computer
1985 - LZW patent approved
1986 - Sperry (patent holder) merged with Burroughs to form Unisys, not
quite a purchase like I remembered
1987 - CompuServe creates GIF
1993 - Unisys becomes aware that GIF uses LZW compression
This paraphrased from Encyclopedia of Graphics File Formats, 2nd ed.
-Mark Gordn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Gordon wrote in message <39421BB5.AB8BA839@mailbag.com>...
>Digging out books...
>
>1984 - LZW compression invented and written up in IEEE Computer
>1985 - LZW patent approved
>1986 - Sperry (patent holder) merged with Burroughs to form Unisys, not
>quite a purchase like I remembered
>1987 - CompuServe creates GIF
>1993 - Unisys becomes aware that GIF uses LZW compression
Good news! If the dates here are correct, the patent on LZW will expire in
two years.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark Wagner" <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
news:394313ef@news.povray.org...
>
> Mark Gordon wrote in message <39421BB5.AB8BA839@mailbag.com>...
> >Digging out books...
> >
> >1984 - LZW compression invented and written up in IEEE Computer
> >1985 - LZW patent approved
> >1986 - Sperry (patent holder) merged with Burroughs to form Unisys, not
> >quite a purchase like I remembered
> >1987 - CompuServe creates GIF
> >1993 - Unisys becomes aware that GIF uses LZW compression
>
>
> Good news! If the dates here are correct, the patent on LZW will expire
in
> two years.
What I do not understand:
When LZW was published 1984,
how can it be patented in 1985?
I mean as soon as I publish an idea in a newspaper,
it's not any more possible to patent it,
because the idea is general knowledge because
was published before
--
Mösl Roland http://www.pege.org
Clear targets for a confused civilization
http://www.BeingFound.com
web design and seminars
+43 699 17343674
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Many thanks for that Mark. I think my memory need replacing :)
Alf
Mark Gordon <mtg### [at] mailbagcom> wrote in message
news:39421BB5.AB8BA839@mailbag.com...
> Alf Peake wrote:
> >
> > When this HooHa started I was under the impression that the
algorithm
> > was patented _after_ CS produced the GIF format but before Unisys
was
> > involved. I was wrong?
>
> Digging out books...
>
> 1984 - LZW compression invented and written up in IEEE Computer
> 1985 - LZW patent approved
> 1986 - Sperry (patent holder) merged with Burroughs to form Unisys,
not
> quite a purchase like I remembered
> 1987 - CompuServe creates GIF
> 1993 - Unisys becomes aware that GIF uses LZW compression
>
> This paraphrased from Encyclopedia of Graphics File Formats, 2nd ed.
>
> -Mark Gordn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.general "Mösl Roland" <fou### [at] pegeorg> wrote:
: What I do not understand:
: When LZW was published 1984,
: how can it be patented in 1985?
The patent was approved in 1985. It doesn't mean that the patent application
was made in 1985. The approval of a patent is always a very long process.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:37:22 +0200, Mösl Roland wrote:
>"Mark Wagner" <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
>news:394313ef@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Mark Gordon wrote in message <39421BB5.AB8BA839@mailbag.com>...
>> >1984 - LZW compression invented and written up in IEEE Computer
>> >1985 - LZW patent approved
>
>What I do not understand:
>
>When LZW was published 1984,
>how can it be patented in 1985?
>
>I mean as soon as I publish an idea in a newspaper,
>it's not any more possible to patent it,
>because the idea is general knowledge because
>was published before
That's not quite correct. The "prior art" rule prevents people from
patenting things which they did not invent themselves (otherwise
somebody might patent the wheel and then sue all the car manufacturers).
If you invent something, you can certainly show it or describe it to any
number of people and still patent it. However, it might be somewhat
difficult to prove that you are the inventor, if you show it to too many
people. As other people already pointed out, it takes some time to
approve a patent (if fact, 1 year seems to be remarkably short!).
However, I don't understand something else: When the issue first came up
in 1993, everybody seemed to think that only the compression algorithm
was covered by the patent, not the decompression (That's why gzip can
read .Z-files, but cannot create them). However, the patent cited here
very clearly mentions decompression, too. Are there two patents about
LZW?
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Peter J. Holzer who wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:37:22 +0200, Mösl Roland wrote:
>>"Mark Wagner" <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
>>news:394313ef@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>> Mark Gordon wrote in message <39421BB5.AB8BA839@mailbag.com>...
>>> >1984 - LZW compression invented and written up in IEEE Computer
>>> >1985 - LZW patent approved
>>
>>What I do not understand:
>>
>>When LZW was published 1984,
>>how can it be patented in 1985?
>>
>>I mean as soon as I publish an idea in a newspaper,
>>it's not any more possible to patent it,
>>because the idea is general knowledge because
>>was published before
>
>That's not quite correct. The "prior art" rule prevents people from
>patenting things which they did not invent themselves (otherwise
>somebody might patent the wheel and then sue all the car manufacturers).
>If you invent something, you can certainly show it or describe it to any
>number of people and still patent it. However, it might be somewhat
>difficult to prove that you are the inventor, if you show it to too many
>people. As other people already pointed out, it takes some time to
>approve a patent (if fact, 1 year seems to be remarkably short!).
I don't think that "prior art" is the rule in question here. If you
publish details of your invention and then later apply for a patent,
that patent is not going to retrospectively protect you from people
using what you have already published.
>However, I don't understand something else: When the issue first came up
>in 1993, everybody seemed to think that only the compression algorithm
>was covered by the patent, not the decompression (That's why gzip can
>read .Z-files, but cannot create them). However, the patent cited here
>very clearly mentions decompression, too. Are there two patents about
>LZW?
The owners of the patent wanted people to freely implement decompression
routines. The basic idea being that this would generate a huge user base
of people who had software that could read the files, but anyone who
wanted to create files to distribute to those users would use software
which was licensed to use the compression algorithm.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Williams" <mik### [at] nospamplease> wrote in message
news:My4### [at] econymdemoncouk...
> Wasn't it Peter J. Holzer who wrote:
> >On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:37:22 +0200, Mösl Roland wrote:
> >>"Mark Wagner" <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote in message
> >>news:394313ef@news.povray.org...
> >>>
> >>> Mark Gordon wrote in message <39421BB5.AB8BA839@mailbag.com>...
> >>> >1984 - LZW compression invented and written up in IEEE Computer
> >>> >1985 - LZW patent approved
> >>
> >>What I do not understand:
> >>
> >>When LZW was published 1984,
> >>how can it be patented in 1985?
> >>
> >>I mean as soon as I publish an idea in a newspaper,
> >>it's not any more possible to patent it,
> >>because the idea is general knowledge because
> >>was published before
> >
> >That's not quite correct. The "prior art" rule prevents people from
> >patenting things which they did not invent themselves (otherwise
> >somebody might patent the wheel and then sue all the car manufacturers).
> >If you invent something, you can certainly show it or describe it to any
> >number of people and still patent it. However, it might be somewhat
> >difficult to prove that you are the inventor, if you show it to too many
> >people. As other people already pointed out, it takes some time to
> >approve a patent (if fact, 1 year seems to be remarkably short!).
>
> I don't think that "prior art" is the rule in question here. If you
> publish details of your invention and then later apply for a patent,
If You publish something in a newspaper,
it's not possible to have a patent later.
Because publishing it makes it general knowledge.
There was once the application for a patent to raise
sunken ships by blowing styrofoam balls into it.
The application was turned down, because it was
public knowledge to do so.
In the 50ties, it was published in a Mickey Mouse
that Donald Duck has raised a sunken ship by
blowing tennis balls into it.
--
Mösl Roland http://www.pege.org
Clear targets for a confused civilization
http://www.BeingFound.com
web design and seminars
+43 699 17343674
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
