On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:11:19 +0200, "Severi Salminen"
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:

>> >that only a very small minority can view by default - are you surprised
>of
>> >the feedback?
>>
>> I've had better feedback in other places, including those where I'm
>> not exactly flavour of the month. This place however is full of ery
>> backwards looking people.
>
>This place is full of people who want to see the attachment directly with
>their news reader software without the need to install plugins, open
>external applications etc. It is called convenience. I agree with you that I
>also would like people to adopt new and better technologies faster but
>simetimes you have to settle to what software vendors decide. I can also say

Software vendors decide? Dear me! I think it should be the fucking
customer that decides. Bloody hell, are you lot so bloody meek as to
let people like Microsoft dictate to you what you can and cannot do.

As for convenience as an excuse - I call that laziness.

>that this is not the place to try to "encourage" people for it (because of
>what Thorsten said) and also: being polite would be a _lot_ more efficient

No. He said that JPEG2000 is inappropriate for this venue. He didn't
mention anything about discussing it. Not that there's been much
discussion. Just a load of ducks quacking about not being able to see
the image. Hardly anyone here is willing to discuss the pros and cons
of JPEG2000.

>way to do it...

The time for politeness is way gone. After having one of my posts
mangled by some careless person, you people deserve a piece of my
mind.

>
>> >The format is of course technically superior to JPEG, nobody
>> >can deny that, but the purpose of this group is probably to share
>pictures
>> >with others, not to be an archive of best possible quality images.
>>
>> That JPEG2000 image was not supposed to be a best-quality picture. For
>> that I would have posted the archived TIFF. JPEG2000 with lossless
>> compression is still not going to pass for best quality.
>
>Are you comparing 16-bit TIFF to 16-bit lossless JPEG2000? How can there be
>a difference between image quality of those two?

Oops. I meant to type 'lossy' there. Thanks for noticing that.

>
>> One is definately at the mercy of the receiving machine and its
>> software, but how that combination chooses to render a 16-bit image is
>> unknown. Indeed it could just "posterise" it and re-introduce gradient
>> banding or it could perhaps apply a dithering to simulate the original
>> colour depth.
>
>If you think dithered image looks better than banded, then why didn't you
>post a dithered JPEG in the first place? And since the  "Preservation of the

Why should I when I have the chance to deliver a true 16-bit image?
Yes, the chances are that it will not be perfectly displayed at the
end machine, but at least the 16-bit intent will be maintained.

>output of POV-Ray is the point" you also could have posted the source code
>for the scene: people could have seen it, rendered it to best fit their
>hardware etc. 

This is not the newsgroup for scene files. Bloody hell, get your
fucking venue right.

>Don't even bother to answer, I lost my interest. I just hope

Typical. Another lazy person who can't be bothered to think about it.

>you'll post using only JPEG in the future, until most newsreaders support
>JPEG2000 decoding. Thanks, take care.

READ THE REST OF THIS FUCKING THREAD. GET ALL OF THE FACTS BEFORE YOU
QUACK ON LIKE THAT.

What did I say elsewhere? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT: YES, I SHALL BE POSTING
IN JPEG FORMAT FROM NOW ON AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THE POV-EAY TEAM
MEMBERS.

I totally disagree with the point of limiting ones options due to
laziness, but those are the so-called rules. 

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

Post a reply to this message