Durring my sport shooting in school we used German rifles and learned all about German perfection
Pah! I'm German myself (and as such perfect, by definition), but even I would prefer a Finish rifle anyday (I used to use Finish Lions - very nicely crafted, well balanced, and simply a joy to squeeze that trigger...)
Many people have tried to compare the Open Source community to some existing social structures. It seems to me, though, that it is closest to that of the Bene Gesserit. They have a society where criticism is welcome, and is in fact relied on to keep the Sisterhood strong. Open Source also requires everyone who can to participate in strengthening the existing basis (the code). There's nothing else quite like it. (This view of the Bene Gesserit is explained in most detail in "Chapterhouse: Dune".)
Oh, and they survived many thousands for years, as I am sure Linux will aswell *grin*. In fact, as long as there is no Butlerian Jihad, the Sisterhood will probably run Linux on their Mentats...
Off-topic - given Muad'dib, can I call CreateMuadDibSection to get a Muad'ddb?
I have a doubt...too - and so you should
on
JPEG 2000 Specs
·
· Score: 1
I did my homework. Firstly I got this from a book (forget which one, published in mid to late 80's, I think), which was given to me as "THE book to read on different image formats". I have also read this in many other places. And I have observed it by eye. Further, the human eye does not pick up sharp borders between colours in natural scenes (except if you stufy them carefully). JPEGs also smooth out such borders - this is one of the most noticeable artifacts with JPEG compression. I should add, though, that the level of compression we use at work is never worse than the 2nd best quality/2nd largest. At tighter compression it becomes a waste of effort. For wavelets we started with the company that provides the wavelet decompression engine for Microsoft's Encarta (our direct competitor). If you have ever seen Encarta (at least '98 or earlier), the photos look like shit. Cloud-shaped artifacts on a blue sky are (barely) acceptable. Cloud-shaped artifacts on grass, a window, a (tiled) rooftop - that's pretty dire. Having tried that same wavelet compression engine, we compressed images with it at the highest possible quality. 640x480x8 images came out around 65-69K, with both wavelet and JPEG. The wavelets were of a quality we considered unacceptable. The JPEGs were very difficult to distinguish from the originals (excepting almost flat colour areas and sharp borders).
You may also note that the first thing I said in my post was that this research was done more than a year ago. It was, admittedly, only done on the web, but I figured most companies touting such a technology at a level appropriate for multimedia applications for home-users would also be trying to provide us all with browser plug-ins.
Oh, and comparing artifacts again, I think that most people would have greater difficulty observing 2x2 square artifacts, than ones that look like 200x2 pixel squiggly lines running all over the place. Oh, and that attractive fuzzy "I can't focu anymore, maybe I need glasses" effect.
Finally, though, thanks for the book recommendation. I'll check it out.
Interesting. But I have some *ahem* concerns. First off let me mention that I work in "multimedia", and a bit more than a year ago I did a lot of research into different image compression formats, as we were starting on specifying a new product.
So, with that disclaimer: 1). I seem to recall that JPEG already had a facility for storing multiple resolutions in one image, with all general compression info stored at the start of the file (in JFIFs), and the lowest res version next, followed by the 2nd lowest res, and so on, until you reach the highest res at the end. 2). Whilst looking at different compression formats, I also looked at several different wavelet based implementations. Without exception they looked worse than JPEG at the same file size. Yes, you read right - WORSE. Both in a 256 colour display (JPEG at its worst, as dithering looks really quite bad in palettised display), and with millions of colours. We dropped the idea of using wavelets. Oh, and the decompression speed _appeared_ to be slower for wavelets than for JPEGs. Not significantly enough for it to have affected our decision, but still... 3). JPEG, even though it is lossy, makes most photos look better than they started off. This is due to the way that the sampling for the DCT works. It takes into account how the human eye works, and leaves out things that our brains wouldn't even notice anyway. Kinda like the psycho-acoustic sampling used for MP3. Many people are reported to prefer that sound to the original digital sounds aswell.
Of course, we would never use JPEGs for line drawings, or maps (with lots of text). For those we use a lossless compression. Sadly the choice here had to be GIF (supported by Java, and our app is being written in Java. *sigh*). JPEG2K does, however, sound interesting due to the combination of a lossy and a lossless compression scheme into the same "standard". On the other hand, the same thing could be done with JFIF, and already IS done with BMPs and PICTs. And coming from JPEG, it is likely to be fully supported by Sun years before PNG is finally supported. *sigh*
We had a QuickTime evangelist come to our company some months ago. He mentioned this deal with opening the source to the server. The implication was that you would be able to write your own version for free, but he made no mention of the requirements for distribution. I also asked about any plans Apple may have for releasing QT for Linux, and there the answer was a resounding no. Even though he liked the idea of the penguin (QT) running on the penguin (Linux), he said that at least for '99 there were no plans whatsoever for porting, and he couldn't tell any further into the future. He did imply that this might happen if the market for it came into being, but how they judge that, is anybody's guess. I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. And don't expect them to open up the source, either - QT is their second most important/valuable software asset (after the OS).
When Derek Burney was talking about other companies that might benefit from Corel's work on Wine, he gave as an example: "That will make it easier for other vendors, like Adobe...".
Do his employers know how eager he is for Corel to be taken over by Adobe?
Otherwise, quite a good interview... with attitudes like that, maybe there is hope for humanity after all.
I'm still waiting for someone to make a programable keyboard with a little LCD on each of the keys. This way, when you change the meaning of your keys around, it is immediately reflected on the keyboard. I could really do with this for several reasons - Firstly, I write software for a French company, who has a Spanish counterpart for whom we also do development. So it would be really handy if I could switch keyboard layouts to be able to easily get at all the relevant accented characters. Secondly, I wanna switch to Dvorak, but my wife doesn't (guess who wins). I know that a Dvorty keyboard would solve that problem, but that's only good if I am content with the default Dvorak layout, and don't want one that's got the punctuation located somewhat more usefully for a programmer. So LCDs really would be it!
Another nice use would be making a little keypad to plug into your laptop for playing games (after all, most games nowadays only require a few keys, no longer the entire keyboard). Then you need a pointing device that can be held completely in one hand, without needing to rest it on a table (if anyone knows of one, let me know). Then add glasses with little LCD screens (I actually saw these being sold by a company for aroun $1000 with a resolution of, I believe, 800x600). Finally some normal headphones, and you can play games on your laptop without even opening it... fun, eh?
Back in the "Good 'Ole Days" (i.e. at uni) we had Sun IPC and IPX workstations. Those keyboards are just so beautiful - when I first started using them, I was practically typing as easily (and as fast) as thinking. There is just enough feedback on the keys that you know when one has been pressed, but so little resistance to your pressing that you expend zero extra energy on typing. When I first switched to using the Sun workstations, I had previously only used Nerd-bury, er, Newbury workstations, with their very average keyboards (although they were cool cos they allowed to to program your F keys to any key combination you liked, up to something like 30 keys a piece - very useful for MUDs...). So, when I first typed on one of those Sun keyboards, it was an almost sensual sensation... If anyone ever finds out that Sun have decided to make those for PCs and/or Macs, and preferably with a switch for QWERTY/Dvorak (like the Dvorty), let me know, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Durring my sport shooting in school we used German rifles and learned all about German perfection
Pah!
I'm German myself (and as such perfect, by definition), but even I would prefer a Finish rifle anyday (I used to use Finish Lions - very nicely crafted, well balanced, and simply a joy to squeeze that trigger...)
Many people have tried to compare the Open Source community to some existing social structures. It seems to me, though, that it is closest to that of the Bene Gesserit. They have a society where criticism is welcome, and is in fact relied on to keep the Sisterhood strong. Open Source also requires everyone who can to participate in strengthening the existing basis (the code). There's nothing else quite like it.
(This view of the Bene Gesserit is explained in most detail in "Chapterhouse: Dune".)
Oh, and they survived many thousands for years, as I am sure Linux will aswell *grin*. In fact, as long as there is no Butlerian Jihad, the Sisterhood will probably run Linux on their Mentats...
Off-topic - given Muad'dib, can I call CreateMuadDibSection to get a Muad'ddb?
I did my homework. Firstly I got this from a book (forget which one, published in mid to late 80's, I think), which was given to me as "THE book to read on different image formats". I have also read this in many other places. And I have observed it by eye. Further, the human eye does not pick up sharp borders between colours in natural scenes (except if you stufy them carefully). JPEGs also smooth out such borders - this is one of the most noticeable artifacts with JPEG compression. I should add, though, that the level of compression we use at work is never worse than the 2nd best quality/2nd largest. At tighter compression it becomes a waste of effort.
For wavelets we started with the company that provides the wavelet decompression engine for Microsoft's Encarta (our direct competitor). If you have ever seen Encarta (at least '98 or earlier), the photos look like shit. Cloud-shaped artifacts on a blue sky are (barely) acceptable. Cloud-shaped artifacts on grass, a window, a (tiled) rooftop - that's pretty dire.
Having tried that same wavelet compression engine, we compressed images with it at the highest possible quality. 640x480x8 images came out around 65-69K, with both wavelet and JPEG. The wavelets were of a quality we considered unacceptable. The JPEGs were very difficult to distinguish from the originals (excepting almost flat colour areas and sharp borders).
You may also note that the first thing I said in my post was that this research was done more than a year ago. It was, admittedly, only done on the web, but I figured most companies touting such a technology at a level appropriate for multimedia applications for home-users would also be trying to provide us all with browser plug-ins.
Oh, and comparing artifacts again, I think that most people would have greater difficulty observing 2x2 square artifacts, than ones that look like 200x2 pixel squiggly lines running all over the place. Oh, and that attractive fuzzy "I can't focu anymore, maybe I need glasses" effect.
Finally, though, thanks for the book recommendation. I'll check it out.
~m.
Interesting. But I have some *ahem* concerns. First off let me mention that I work in "multimedia", and a bit more than a year ago I did a lot of research into different image compression formats, as we were starting on specifying a new product.
So, with that disclaimer:
1). I seem to recall that JPEG already had a facility for storing multiple resolutions in one image, with all general compression info stored at the start of the file (in JFIFs), and the lowest res version next, followed by the 2nd lowest res, and so on, until you reach the highest res at the end.
2). Whilst looking at different compression formats, I also looked at several different wavelet based implementations. Without exception they looked worse than JPEG at the same file size. Yes, you read right - WORSE. Both in a 256 colour display (JPEG at its worst, as dithering looks really quite bad in palettised display), and with millions of colours. We dropped the idea of using wavelets. Oh, and the decompression speed _appeared_ to be slower for wavelets than for JPEGs. Not significantly enough for it to have affected our decision, but still...
3). JPEG, even though it is lossy, makes most photos look better than they started off. This is due to the way that the sampling for the DCT works. It takes into account how the human eye works, and leaves out things that our brains wouldn't even notice anyway. Kinda like the psycho-acoustic sampling used for MP3. Many people are reported to prefer that sound to the original digital sounds aswell.
Of course, we would never use JPEGs for line drawings, or maps (with lots of text). For those we use a lossless compression. Sadly the choice here had to be GIF (supported by Java, and our app is being written in Java. *sigh*).
JPEG2K does, however, sound interesting due to the combination of a lossy and a lossless compression scheme into the same "standard". On the other hand, the same thing could be done with JFIF, and already IS done with BMPs and PICTs. And coming from JPEG, it is likely to be fully supported by Sun years before PNG is finally supported. *sigh*
~m.
We had a QuickTime evangelist come to our company some months ago. He mentioned this deal with opening the source to the server. The implication was that you would be able to write your own version for free, but he made no mention of the requirements for distribution.
I also asked about any plans Apple may have for releasing QT for Linux, and there the answer was a resounding no. Even though he liked the idea of the penguin (QT) running on the penguin (Linux), he said that at least for '99 there were no plans whatsoever for porting, and he couldn't tell any further into the future. He did imply that this might happen if the market for it came into being, but how they judge that, is anybody's guess. I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. And don't expect them to open up the source, either - QT is their second most important/valuable software asset (after the OS).
When Derek Burney was talking about other companies that might benefit from Corel's work on Wine, he gave as an example:
"That will make it easier for other vendors,
like Adobe...".
Do his employers know how eager he is for Corel to be taken over by Adobe?
Otherwise, quite a good interview... with attitudes like that, maybe there is hope for humanity after all.
I'm still waiting for someone to make a programable keyboard with a little LCD on each of the keys. This way, when you change the meaning of your keys around, it is immediately reflected on the keyboard.
I could really do with this for several reasons - Firstly, I write software for a French company, who has a Spanish counterpart for whom we also do development. So it would be really handy if I could switch keyboard layouts to be able to easily get at all the relevant accented characters. Secondly, I wanna switch to Dvorak, but my wife doesn't (guess who wins). I know that a Dvorty keyboard would solve that problem, but that's only good if I am content with the default Dvorak layout, and don't want one that's got the punctuation located somewhat more usefully for a programmer. So LCDs really would be it!
Another nice use would be making a little keypad to plug into your laptop for playing games (after all, most games nowadays only require a few keys, no longer the entire keyboard). Then you need a pointing device that can be held completely in one hand, without needing to rest it on a table (if anyone knows of one, let me know). Then add glasses with little LCD screens (I actually saw these being sold by a company for aroun $1000 with a resolution of, I believe, 800x600). Finally some normal headphones, and you can play games on your laptop without even opening it... fun, eh?
Back in the "Good 'Ole Days" (i.e. at uni) we had Sun IPC and IPX workstations. Those keyboards are just so beautiful - when I first started using them, I was practically typing as easily (and as fast) as thinking. There is just enough feedback on the keys that you know when one has been pressed, but so little resistance to your pressing that you expend zero extra energy on typing.
When I first switched to using the Sun workstations, I had previously only used Nerd-bury, er, Newbury workstations, with their very average keyboards (although they were cool cos they allowed to to program your F keys to any key combination you liked, up to something like 30 keys a piece - very useful for MUDs...). So, when I first typed on one of those Sun keyboards, it was an almost sensual sensation...
If anyone ever finds out that Sun have decided to make those for PCs and/or Macs, and preferably with a switch for QWERTY/Dvorak (like the Dvorty), let me know, eh?