On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:29:12 -0800 "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is boring and purile! Do I have to butt in and show you fellas how to > have an artful flame war? It stopped being about art from the first reply! > 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). > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
