That's not lossy as the render engine has nothing to do with the 3D file itself. Is the PNG format lossy because some browsers render it differently? No. Is HTML lossy because of CSS formating? No. "Lossy" is when the information contained in the file degrades every time it is saved, which is not the same as how a file is displayed.
Oh, it "keeps" assuming. I see I apparently used it multiple times even though I only posted two sentences. But honestly, how could it be the Universal 3D format if it can't do CAD-CAM?
But I'll put CAD aside for the sake of argument. Even going with, say, video games, a small deviation in the position of a vertex can mean the difference between an object displaying normally or two surfaces conflicting/intersecting.
Here's the question: what information is there for you to lose besides the normal poly-count? The only other one I can think of are coordinates (which would parallel JPEG quite well), which isn't a good idea for any application as I touched on above, so that's out. So if it's limited to polycount why the hell would anyone want a file system determining what vertices to keep instead of the myriad of nice controls designed for this already in their editors? Even here game designers would give it a pass. Since the file format, we'll assume for lack of a better way to be lossy, is concerned with polycount, it's unlikely that it would support massive numbers of polygons in the models, so Hollywood wouldn't touch it. So really there would be no practical use for it.
The notion of a lossy 3D format, just like a lossy 2D vector graphic format, is stupid. Especially one that purports to be "universal." So guess what? U3D will be lossless.
Yes, I certainly wouldn't mind the CAD files for the next plane I'll be flying in being in a lossy format. We don't need those parts to fit exactly, do we?
Yes, but then with the nuclear production you have to deal with all that nasty dihydrogen-monoxide they use as coolant. I tell you, ya can wash your fruits and vegetables all you want and you will never get rid of that contamination.
Um, the waste can be recycled, as it is in France and Japan, which would eliminate somewhere around 90-95% of it. The US doesn't do that because of what could be described as paranoia over nuclear proliferation.
That 2 point is shift qualifies as "slight" mathematically, sure, but you see the odds are now tipped in favor of YOU, which is very significant, more so than, say, a 20 point that still has the house winning.
Why would the sub $800 After Effects be killed by the $5000 Shake ($10000 if you use something other than OS-X)?
Re:I just HAVE to comment on this...
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 1
As long as your code communicates "at arms length" with the GPL program, such that they're essentially two programs,you can do this. Also, there's nothing in the GPL requiring distribution. If I modify a GPL program, I have no obligation to make it available to anyone. Since corporations are also considered to be individuals, if a company modifies a GPL program for its own internal use, the GPL could not force them to make it available (there does look to be an exception for server software). In fact, the GPL simply forbids distribution:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Plus, are you telling me that it is impossible to wave enough greenbacks under the patent holder's nose to get them to release the code to the Open Source community? Surely capitalistic buisnesses can be bought!
Re:I just HAVE to comment on this...
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 1
No, it can, someone just needs to shell out LOTS of money for it, hence why the arguement that it would be cheaper to hire a programmer just doesn't work.
Re:Missing the point of CMYK?
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Except I didn't ask why businesses haven't contributed to the development, only why $1500 of resources haven't been comitted to create it. Remember, the assertion I was originally responding to was directed twoards an individual complaining about lack of CMYK; "Why don't YOU pay the programmer." Thus, the $1500 threshold. (using one of Adobe's production bundles as the price point)
I would venture to say that companies imploying 100 Photoshopers are going to be a rarity, at least in any concentration to avoid the negative affects of massive beuracracy, and those companies that do imploy that many would probably need far more than simply CMYK from Photoshop over the GIMP. But even if they did just need CMYK, the programmer is just part of the equation. You would also need to shell out money to license the applicable patents, and then you're probably now getting lawyers involved. After you've payed out $20,000 to your programmer, what happens when something breaks? If you want it to be proprietary, you can't very well just release the code to the OSS community for trouble shooting. Now you need to keep the programmer(s) permanently on your payroll. Want new functions? That's more money. And you touched on the subject before: standards. When one of your graphic designers leaves, you want his replacement to be able to start work immediately instead of having to learn your quirky application. All in all, what is the benifit to re-inventing the wheel versus just buying Photoshop and the occasional upgrades for a buisness?
Re:Missing the point of CMYK?
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Well, neither did your response to my initial question, but you don't see me complaining about that.
Re:Missing the point of CMYK?
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 1
So are you saying that with all the time the programmers have put into creating just the GIMP the value still does not equal $1500? My statement was not simply "why hasn't an individual/buisness thrown $1500 at the project all at once" but why hasn't the free software community, as a whole, mustered a measly $1500 worth of effort on this project yet? They apparently haven't even put in $600 worth to just match Photoshop.
I also have to say that if $1500 is all it would cost to code, Adobe must have some insanely high profit margins.
Re:Missing the point of CMYK?
on
Gimp Hits 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Really? You honestly think it's more expensive to shell out $1500 to buy AE6.0 Pro, Premiere Pro, Audition, Photoshop CS and Encore than to pay a coder to fill in the gaps on the sparse free Open Source offerings to get near the same functionality? If so, why hasn't it been done already?
So... Mercury is now a planetoid? Mars is a planetoid also, as it isn't holding its sparse atmosphere well. Even Earth will eventually be a planetoid, we've been steadily loosing our atmosphere for billions of years.
Why moonlet? Why not just satellite?
What do we call rocks, of any size or composition, just moving through the void between stars? They can't be asteroids as asteroids must revolve around stars, right?
The first response was correct. I should have said "can become round through its own gravity." Of course though, round != spherical, it includes the approximation of being spherical/cylindrical. So even a squashed ball would count as being "round" (heck, the Earth is squashed slightly just from its rotation).
What about asteroid belts with planets stuck in them? What if we run into two planets in the same orbit but orbiting at such a speed that they don't collide?
I do love how, in your scenarios, you automatically assumed my definition doesn't work through the use of the word "planet." Explain how, through my proposed definition, there can ever be planetS in a given orbit? You would either have one planet and one (or more) planetoid(s), or two (or more) planetoids. I fail to see the point of your third, as volume doesn't play into this at all, only mass.
The definition that makes Pluto not a planet is not based completely on arbitary size and so would probably not demote Mercury as well. The most prevalent definition of a planet (which was not stated in the article as far as I could tell, at least not completely) is any gravitationaly round object that is more massive than the rest of the mass in a similar orbit COMBINED. Mercury would be safe with this definition, while Pluto would be quickly tossed out. I actually like this better as the term "planetoid" now means something different than either "planet", "asteroid" or "satelite." (it would become a synonym of one of these otherwise) I propose the following definitions:
Planetoid: Any object that becomes round by its own gravity but does not sustain fussion.
Moon: Any planetoid that orbits another planetoid (let's face it, it's a generic term and nothing will ever change that). BTW: This would demote a lot of "moons" to mere satelites.
Planet: Any planetoid that is more massive than the the rest of the matter in its orbit combined.
Yes, that would be why he stated that GRAVITY would be making the object round, not some other force. So, no, by that definition water bubbles would not be planets.
It really depends on the definition of "planet," which astronomers have yet to agree on. By the definition of a body that is more massive than all other combined mass in a similar orbit, Sedna would not be a planet. Of course, neither would Pluto, so we would only have eight planets, but since many astronomers don't like the idea of Pluto being a planet, this definition is fairly prevelant. By the definition of any body not orbiting a planet but is made round by its own gravity, Sedna would be... what... the 12th planet? (Quaoar and 2004 DW making up the other two, at least)
Slashdot Mirror
That's not lossy as the render engine has nothing to do with the 3D file itself. Is the PNG format lossy because some browsers render it differently? No. Is HTML lossy because of CSS formating? No. "Lossy" is when the information contained in the file degrades every time it is saved, which is not the same as how a file is displayed.
Oh, it "keeps" assuming. I see I apparently used it multiple times even though I only posted two sentences. But honestly, how could it be the Universal 3D format if it can't do CAD-CAM?
But I'll put CAD aside for the sake of argument. Even going with, say, video games, a small deviation in the position of a vertex can mean the difference between an object displaying normally or two surfaces conflicting/intersecting.
Here's the question: what information is there for you to lose besides the normal poly-count? The only other one I can think of are coordinates (which would parallel JPEG quite well), which isn't a good idea for any application as I touched on above, so that's out. So if it's limited to polycount why the hell would anyone want a file system determining what vertices to keep instead of the myriad of nice controls designed for this already in their editors? Even here game designers would give it a pass. Since the file format, we'll assume for lack of a better way to be lossy, is concerned with polycount, it's unlikely that it would support massive numbers of polygons in the models, so Hollywood wouldn't touch it. So really there would be no practical use for it.
The notion of a lossy 3D format, just like a lossy 2D vector graphic format, is stupid. Especially one that purports to be "universal." So guess what? U3D will be lossless.
Yes, I certainly wouldn't mind the CAD files for the next plane I'll be flying in being in a lossy format. We don't need those parts to fit exactly, do we?
Until you realize that Shake for Linux costs TWICE AS MUCH as Shake for OS X. You could buy a good turnkey G5-Shake system for that price.
Yes, because we all know Premiere was the only NLE software for the Mac...
Yes, but then with the nuclear production you have to deal with all that nasty dihydrogen-monoxide they use as coolant. I tell you, ya can wash your fruits and vegetables all you want and you will never get rid of that contamination.
Since when does the law have anything to do with what is or is not moral?
Oh if only we hadn't dumped all that salt into the oceans!
Just another example of putting WAY too much emphasis on the "common" and none on the "sense."
They all have to be better than The Incredibly Strange Browsers Who Crashed and Became Bundled Microsoft Products!!?
Um, the waste can be recycled, as it is in France and Japan, which would eliminate somewhere around 90-95% of it. The US doesn't do that because of what could be described as paranoia over nuclear proliferation.
Which is why we should just give up with graphics and revive the Z-Machine for use in all future games.
That 2 point is shift qualifies as "slight" mathematically, sure, but you see the odds are now tipped in favor of YOU, which is very significant, more so than, say, a 20 point that still has the house winning.
Why would the sub $800 After Effects be killed by the $5000 Shake ($10000 if you use something other than OS-X)?
As long as your code communicates "at arms length" with the GPL program, such that they're essentially two programs,you can do this. Also, there's nothing in the GPL requiring distribution. If I modify a GPL program, I have no obligation to make it available to anyone. Since corporations are also considered to be individuals, if a company modifies a GPL program for its own internal use, the GPL could not force them to make it available (there does look to be an exception for server software). In fact, the GPL simply forbids distribution:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Plus, are you telling me that it is impossible to wave enough greenbacks under the patent holder's nose to get them to release the code to the Open Source community? Surely capitalistic buisnesses can be bought!
No, it can, someone just needs to shell out LOTS of money for it, hence why the arguement that it would be cheaper to hire a programmer just doesn't work.
Except I didn't ask why businesses haven't contributed to the development, only why $1500 of resources haven't been comitted to create it. Remember, the assertion I was originally responding to was directed twoards an individual complaining about lack of CMYK; "Why don't YOU pay the programmer." Thus, the $1500 threshold. (using one of Adobe's production bundles as the price point)
I would venture to say that companies imploying 100 Photoshopers are going to be a rarity, at least in any concentration to avoid the negative affects of massive beuracracy, and those companies that do imploy that many would probably need far more than simply CMYK from Photoshop over the GIMP. But even if they did just need CMYK, the programmer is just part of the equation. You would also need to shell out money to license the applicable patents, and then you're probably now getting lawyers involved. After you've payed out $20,000 to your programmer, what happens when something breaks? If you want it to be proprietary, you can't very well just release the code to the OSS community for trouble shooting. Now you need to keep the programmer(s) permanently on your payroll. Want new functions? That's more money. And you touched on the subject before: standards. When one of your graphic designers leaves, you want his replacement to be able to start work immediately instead of having to learn your quirky application. All in all, what is the benifit to re-inventing the wheel versus just buying Photoshop and the occasional upgrades for a buisness?
Well, neither did your response to my initial question, but you don't see me complaining about that.
So are you saying that with all the time the programmers have put into creating just the GIMP the value still does not equal $1500? My statement was not simply "why hasn't an individual/buisness thrown $1500 at the project all at once" but why hasn't the free software community, as a whole, mustered a measly $1500 worth of effort on this project yet? They apparently haven't even put in $600 worth to just match Photoshop.
I also have to say that if $1500 is all it would cost to code, Adobe must have some insanely high profit margins.
Really? You honestly think it's more expensive to shell out $1500 to buy AE6.0 Pro, Premiere Pro, Audition, Photoshop CS and Encore than to pay a coder to fill in the gaps on the sparse free Open Source offerings to get near the same functionality? If so, why hasn't it been done already?
So... Mercury is now a planetoid? Mars is a planetoid also, as it isn't holding its sparse atmosphere well. Even Earth will eventually be a planetoid, we've been steadily loosing our atmosphere for billions of years.
Why moonlet? Why not just satellite?
What do we call rocks, of any size or composition, just moving through the void between stars? They can't be asteroids as asteroids must revolve around stars, right?
The first response was correct. I should have said "can become round through its own gravity." Of course though, round != spherical, it includes the approximation of being spherical/cylindrical. So even a squashed ball would count as being "round" (heck, the Earth is squashed slightly just from its rotation).
What about asteroid belts with planets stuck in them? What if we run into two planets in the same orbit but orbiting at such a speed that they don't collide?
I do love how, in your scenarios, you automatically assumed my definition doesn't work through the use of the word "planet." Explain how, through my proposed definition, there can ever be planetS in a given orbit? You would either have one planet and one (or more) planetoid(s), or two (or more) planetoids. I fail to see the point of your third, as volume doesn't play into this at all, only mass.
The definition that makes Pluto not a planet is not based completely on arbitary size and so would probably not demote Mercury as well. The most prevalent definition of a planet (which was not stated in the article as far as I could tell, at least not completely) is any gravitationaly round object that is more massive than the rest of the mass in a similar orbit COMBINED. Mercury would be safe with this definition, while Pluto would be quickly tossed out. I actually like this better as the term "planetoid" now means something different than either "planet", "asteroid" or "satelite." (it would become a synonym of one of these otherwise) I propose the following definitions:
Planetoid: Any object that becomes round by its own gravity but does not sustain fussion.
Moon: Any planetoid that orbits another planetoid (let's face it, it's a generic term and nothing will ever change that). BTW: This would demote a lot of "moons" to mere satelites.
Planet: Any planetoid that is more massive than the the rest of the matter in its orbit combined.
Yes, that would be why he stated that GRAVITY would be making the object round, not some other force. So, no, by that definition water bubbles would not be planets.
It really depends on the definition of "planet," which astronomers have yet to agree on. By the definition of a body that is more massive than all other combined mass in a similar orbit, Sedna would not be a planet. Of course, neither would Pluto, so we would only have eight planets, but since many astronomers don't like the idea of Pluto being a planet, this definition is fairly prevelant. By the definition of any body not orbiting a planet but is made round by its own gravity, Sedna would be... what... the 12th planet? (Quaoar and 2004 DW making up the other two, at least)