On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:07:46 -0500 "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/19/07, Polyhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:11:13 -0800 > > "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). Well the thumb nail size is a problem, but there is no easy fix. If i hard wire coppermine to always output jpeg, then it will mung thumbnails for animated gifs. I think what i can do however is whip up a quick bash script to find png thumbnails and run them back throughimage magic and make jpeg thumbnails. I still refuse jpeg for the full resoultion image on black and white, it looses far too much detail. PNG is far from the worst option. Its compression is actually very good for a lossless format. Keep complaining, i'll make the whole site in Amiga IFF, find me web browser other than AWEB that supports that. :D I never said anyone was at fault for bandwidht other than myself. Its just hosted off my cable internet line, and it will never be coloed. Too slow for you, not too slow for anyone with even a hint of patience. > -Adam > Who did know M68K assembly back in the day. But hasn't used it in a decade. > > -- > 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. -- Ben 'Polyhead' Smith KE7GAL -- 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.
