Now Bob, remember your blood pressure The flame war is still in the
preliminary stages. I'm thinking that flame war isn't enough for this
twit. But a Flame Thrower, now we're talking.
Bob Blakely wrote:
> This is boring and purile! Do I have to butt in and show you fellas how to
> have an artful flame war?
>
> Regards,
> Bob...
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
> but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
>
> From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>> On 12/19/07, Polyhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> I also refuse to use jpeg, png or nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow. That's bizarre.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly, jpeg is lossy compression. It grabs a square of pixels and
>>>>> averages them, you lose both dynamic range and resolution with
>>>>> jpeg. PNG is lossless and opensource. The other problem with jpeg
>>>>> is that because of the way it handles compression, it chokes on
>>>>> film grain. There isn't a way to feed a jpeg encoder a image with
>>>>> allot of film grain and have it spit out a reasonable result.
>>>>> People use it because they just don't know any better.
>>>>>
>>>> You're talking about displaying photographs on the internet, which is
>>>> meant
>>>> to be a way of sharing information quickly and easily. Image
>>>> compression
>>>> quality takes a back seat most of the time around here, and no one else
>>>> seems to be complaining about it.
>>>>
>>>> Your elitist attitude is grating. If you really don't care about what
>>>> others think of your photos, why bother posting them in the first
>>>> place?
>>>>
>>> I thought they may enjoy it, I was wrong, instead they looked for
>>> something to complain about. Typical of the bulk of people really.
>>>
>> I've got more bandwidth than God when I'm at work. I work for the
>> company formerly known as UUNET. I've got straight 100MB Full-Duplex
>> connections directly to the alter.net backbone. Your site is still too
>> slow. PNG is NOT a format for rendering photographic output. If fact
>> you probably couldn't have picked a worse format (Well, GIF, but it's
>> got all the bad points of PNG with the addition of patent
>> encumbrance). JPEG is the only commonly supported graphics format
>> suited to web display of photographic images. Yes, it does have some
>> bad points, but a max quality JPEG with smaller, lower-quality
>> thumbnails will produce similar quality output (visually
>> indistinguishable for the full-size image) with far better page render
>> speeds (because your thumbnail's won't be 20x the size they need to
>> be).
>>
>
>
>
--
I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati.
A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated.
When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world
-- Anonymous
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
