According to Projector Central, the Infocus 5000 takes 1080i over component input. Older Infocus units were 480p projectors. So, your complaint there is also utter bullshit. Why should a 480p projector take 1080i as input?
I've got a 5000 in the rec room. It doesn't take 1080i. Or 1080p. Fact. It doesn't matter what "projector central" says, the unit does not do 1080, period, end of story. No BS involved. What is your agenda that you deny reality?
Actually, I like Sony just fine. This is a technical glitch I think they need to fix, very similar to the one MS is facing here. My response was based on the TFS's starting out with this: "Following weeks of headlines touting strong sales for Blu-ray disk", and then mentioning the XBox 360's HD add-on as the "format's leading playback device." which I felt glossed over the facts that the PS3 is one of the Blue-Ray's leading playback devices, and it has a far wider-ranging issue that affects all disks. Finally, I'm not siding with either one - I own both systems and the Wii and am well satisfied with all three of them. My Sony projection system does 1080p native. So I suggest crawl back under your bridge, Mr. AC Troll; maybe you'll find someone there who can help you pry your foot out of your mouth.
(a) 720p is, technically speaking, HD. (b) InFocus, as of last year, was still selling projectors that were 720p max such as the model 5000 (feed them 1080i or 1080p and get garbage or nothing — no downscaling.) (c) standards, unfortunately, cannot be watched. What can be watched are implementations; and some implementations lack 1080i/p capability. The bottom line is, some hardware setups require 720p regardless of your preconceptions; and the PS3 refuses to do that. Because of these facts, standards aside, the bottom line is that for those people who have such hardware, the PS3's Blue-Ray capability isn't any significant amount better than progressive scan standard DVD. You can preach about standards until you're blue (ha!) in the face, but that won't make the PS3 work any better in these situations.
The PS3's Blue-Ray player will not play in HD unless you have a 1080p or 1080i capable display. Since many displays sold until very recently were 720p max, especially projector systems, this puts quite a "ding" in the experience of the PS3's Blue-Ray playback.
What the PS3 does for a system like that is drops back to 480p, which is for all intents and purposes the same as a standard DVD player running in progressive scan. Except that the disk cost $30 instead of $15, that is. These circumstances make the presence of a Blue-Ray player in the PS3 somewhat moot for those with 720p maximum systems.
Sony is of course well aware of this, and despite the recent revelation that the PS3 has a built-in scaler, none of the many updates since the machine was released addresses the problem.
There is a DRM-related agreement (or perhaps I should say conspiracy) with the entertainment industry that says that no component system will be allowed to output more than 720p, but 720p itself is allowed. Standing witness to this is Sony's own stand-alone player which has component out and the ability to do 720p without any problems.
So it isn't only Microsoft that has produced an incomplete or broken solution in the high definition disk arena; Sony's implementation isn't without its serious problems.
What I am referring to is deeper than your sadly shallow point of view
Gullibility, fear of the unknown, and the need for a parental figure often are. These very deep feelings don't limit themselves to the uneducated or the unintelligent; people with every level of cognitive ability, every level of education, and every degree of communications skills are subject to the overwhelming pressure brought to bear by one of these, or various combinations of more than one. Add in the joy of participating in group-think, and you've got a social abscess in the making.
The bottom line is that things are what they are, and no degree of belief will change the underlying natural facts. That's the sad news for worshippers; as someone else mentioned up above, the belief that the sun spun 'round the earth by nearly the entire population did absolutely nothing to alter the reality, and eventually, the reality won over the preconception - no matter the degree of belief. The same will happen with your "god", only unfortunately, it'll take long enough - like the sub belief - that you will almost certainly waste your entire life following an illusion.
Unfortunately, as a social force, religion does a great deal of harm, serving to retard morals (by promoting homophobia and misogyny for just two examples) and promote laws that are harmful or progress-retarding for society. The rest of us put up with the social retardation religion spills all over everything in the name of tolerance, because we know that tolerance has a higher social value than getting rid of religion does. Until religion really gets out of hand, of course. No one is going to put up with an actual theocracy in the USA; we're too close to that as it is.
Anyway, don't worry about your deep feelings. You probably can't change your situation, and the rest of us will tolerate your delusions just so long as you keep your nose out of our lives in terms of laws and so forth.
WI doesn't register at the bottom end because it is a mid to high-end application.
How (cough) clever. Well, you're half right, and as that's the best you've done in the entire thread, entirely aside from your juvenile hyperbole and name-calling, I'll leave it at that. You have a lovely day, Mr. AC.
No. Here's your problem: Plato provides contemporaneous, different-sourced confirmation of Socrates (as do many others.) Paul is a character of whom we know nothing other than he appears in the same book as Christ; because he does not, as far as we know, exist outside the bible, he no more provides another source of confirmation than does Cathy Ryan provide proof that John Ryan was real in a Tom Clancy book. You're trying to make the snake eat its own tail here.
The bible is one source. Everything in it is part of that same source. It is a doubtful source for several reasons, not the least of which is it reports supernatural events. Also, there are no originals, there are no records of originals, there are no records of events it reports that it says were country-wide, it contradicts itself, and it has highly visible ulterior motives for existing that have nothing to do with Christ, that is, control and political power, as amply demonstrated by various Christian political acts over the last 2000 years.
Because the bible is doubtful, it is imperative that additional confirming sources be discovered if we are to be expected to take it seriously. At no time would it be appropriate to lose sight of the fact that so far, not one of the events involving Christ, or even the very existence of Christ himself, have been independently verified by anyone outside the Christian tradition, or anyone at all who lived when Christ is reported to have lived. Given that, Occam's razor says it's most likely a historical fiction.
90% of your posts in this thread are on their way to getting troll-rated
Oh, that's to be expected. This is slashdot; I had the temerity to bring up commercial software and to speak honestly about the Gimp's shortcomings with regard to it. There's no possible response on/. but a frenzy of "yur web site sukz, dude" and "no, gimp is it, yo" and so on. Doesn't faze me in the least.
get a web-designer. Maybe get a GUI designer as well.
The web designer, perhaps someday. It isn't relevant to the software at all, and any impression you've gotten from the posts here or your own visit that the site doesn't perform well for us is entirely wrong. Changing it isn't called for, frankly. Sure, it'd be nice if it was all web 2.0 and all, but frankly, I don't care a great deal. That's not what we do; we're not artists, we're programmers. I kind of like the idea that it filters out the superficial visitors anyway. Those who are looking for functionality find their way to us eventually. They know the difference between a web page and a software feature. If you really won't look at something because of a website, all I can say is you're a very different person than I am, and that's just fine.
The GUI revamp - no. Why? Because the software has looked, and worked, like that for literally decades, since about 1985 when the first functions began to work. We've got a customer base that is very familiar with the interface, even down to the particular icons, and changing it would be a disservice to them. As far as I am concerned, they gave us money; I owe them consistency, at the very least. And they aren't asking for interface changes. You, on the other hand, are not a customer, and you want an interface change. You can imagine to whom I give more priority here, can't you? Those who have given me money. Do you think that's unreasonable?
And keep all the words like "nasty" and "hate" off your testimonials section. Geez.
There are no such words on our testimonials pages - I checked both the users testimonials and the reviewers. Then I used google to search the entire site, and I came up with one use each, both on the WinImages product page, one in context of our own software, one in context of "hate letters" and again, I think what we have here is a great deal of over-sensitivity on your part. If these things actually bother you, I'm just stunned. They don't bother me at all, truly. On the other hand, they aren't particularly significant, so just for you, I'll yank 'em right now.:-)
Not to wander too far off topic, but do you see the humor in posting this... Why should I have to download or buy software to get basic features like resizing and cropping? ...directly over your signature, to wit... TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Gave me a good laugh. Thanks.
WI may be capable of doing these things but it would be a little like using a sledgehammer to drive in a pin tack.
Would it really, now? Let's look at your (baseless) assertion. WI is faster to process, consumes less RAM for the executable, starts and restarts quicker, and can be *easily* configured for any set of simple (or not) operations you prefer, such as clipping, redeye, rotation, brightness, whatever you like, really. They're called "operation caddies" and they make any particular workflow a breeze. Redeye? One click for the op, one area selection for the eye. Done. Clipping? One click for the op, one area selection for the clip. Thumbnails and viewer? Built-in, of course. Rotation? Sure. 90 degree increments, free, perspective, arbitrarily swirl, whatever strikes your fancy. Or you can rotate the thumbnail and leave the image as is. Or rotate them both.
Now, you argue (oddly) that using WI would be like "using a sledgehammer to drive in a pin tack." The implication is (I suppose) that because WI has all this other stuff available to you (it's not in your face unless you need it or ask for it, of course) that it somehow will either bewilder the user (why? do people actually fail to use the Gimp because it has script-fu?) or that it will over-do the job (a sledgehamme would certainly over-drive a pin tack) which is a blatantly incorrect assertion - there is no such correspondence. So perhaps you will take a moment to explain your heartfelt statement. What makes you, as a software user, unable to use Wi, do you think? It can't be the "overdrive", because that is just nonsense. Are you confused because WI is powerful? Are you normally frightened of software that is highly capable? Does that mean to you that you will simply be unable to function when faced with it? Seriously, what is on your mind when you say these things?
it can be done a lot easier with GIMP because the interface is nowhere near as complex as WI.
I'm really trying not to laugh at you. Honestly. Look. You think WI has some complex interface for doing these things? It's an area selection tool, just like the Gimp's - pick a rectangle or an ellipse or the entire image or whatever you like - and pick an operation. If the operation has parameters - such as brightness - you set those where you want them, and then select, and you're done. What exactly about this process intimidates you? Or are you under the impression that you have to do more than these simple and common user interactions? If so, what, and why? Maybe this leads to your "sledgehammer" analogy somehow?
You're welcome to talk up WI when it's relevant, but let's not pretend it is for this type of editing.
I hardly know where to start. Hmmm. Well, first of all, it would be relevant because I started the thread at the root talking about it. Someone seemed to find that interesting; it's modded +5 and has been for hours. I dunno, slashdot moderation is pretty busted, I'm the first to agree, but still, +5? It must have had some merit. Secondly, there's no "pretending" it is good at this type of editing, it is, in point of fact, outstanding at it. Furthermore, it is better at it than then Gimp by virtue of speed, efficiency, range of available tools, flexibility of the live, non-destructive effects engine (which by the way, you don't see or "use", users just benefit in that they can do things like move effects around after they are applied to an image.) Finally, I'm welcome to say anything I like, just as you are. Trust me, no one went and appointed you my personal censor while you were sleeping. Funny thing about that.
Ten years ago, sure, WI would have been a natural choice (No doubt it can do all the lens flare effects I could ever want) but these days it doesn't even register at the bottom end.
the original subject was comparing it to web based photo editors.
Nope. I posted a 0-level post comparing my software, a thick client, to thin clients. I mentioned a bunch of capabilities of my stuff. Someone responded (100% incorrectly) that the Gimp would do what I had said my $30 software would. I responded, disagreed, etc, etc. At this point, and ever since then, the thread has been about Gimp vs my $30 software.
I never seem to have as much trouble following threads as some of you folks are experiencing this morning. Is there a coffee shortage or something?
You said a $30 tool could perform simple photo editing tasks more quickly and easily than doing it on-line.
Close enough.
The other poster said you didn't even need to spend $30 since the GIMP could perform these tasks for nothing.
The first poster said, and again this is a direct quote: "Or you can get GIMP for $0 without looking very hard at all, which is also perfectly capable of doing everything you mention and more." Here are some of the things I mentioned: "RAM-based, N-layer handling, real-time nondestructive effects engine written close to the metal with live geometric warp layers, masking and animation." then I added this " level photos, retouch them, or process the living heck out of very high resolution images if that's your intent, set people on fire, morph them, all manner of sophisticated things"
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Gimp does not have a non-destructive effects engine, nor geometric warp layers, and that makes the poster's statement "is also perfectly capable of doing everything you mention" untrue. It is also highly relevant; generally, the first thing people do with our product is whack some effects on pictures. Finding out that they (the effects) can move, undo, redo, reconfigure and mix non-destructively makes most users delighted. The Gimp can't do this. At all. This is the basis for my entire response - the poster responding to me was flat out wrong.
At this point you launched into some misguided rant that the GIMP could not do various types of processing that some software you are apparently selling can. This was and is irrelevant to the discussion.
My software - the very $30 software I was talking about all along - is what can do all this. That's what I was talking about from line one. You know, it does this: "RAM-based, N-layer handling, real-time nondestructive effects engine written close to the metal with live geometric warp layers, masking and animation, level photos, retouch them, or process the living heck out of very high resolution images if that's your intent, set people on fire, morph them, all manner of sophisticated things" Plus it does all the stuff in my "misguided" rant. Much of the processing it can do, and the Gimp cannot, is related to processing photos. Particularly in the area of more efficient UI and live,layer-based effects. Are you clear now? It was relevant because that was what I was talking about, that was what the poster responded to, and that was what was at issue. No more, no less.
You have since agreed that the Gimp can do the same photo editing tasks as the on-line software in question and you have agreed that it is free
I have not at any time compared the Gimp to online software. I have compared it to my own software, primarily because I am familiar with both and I am not, feature-wise, familiar with said online software. Go on. Check my posts. Not a word about online software vs the Gimp, though I did indulge in a general beating up on online software's ability to perform because of network and HLL issues in the very first post.
Therefore...
Therefore nothing - you got it all wrong, and naturally, your conclusions are all wrong, too.
...seem instead to be trying to drum up some interest in your own products rather than participating in the discussion sensibly
Look. I started the thread. It's an 0-level post. The discussion I started was about my experience and my opinions about thick and thin clients. Some AC posted about the Gimp, making a comparison to what I was talking about - my software - and the Gimp's ability to do photo work. I responded, not very well, by blowing him off - because I knew the Gimp wasn't comparable to our software both in the area of photo editing, and mor
Yes, it is WinImages. You just have to grab it from the right page to get that price, which we offer via paypal only. That page — entirely coincidentally, I swear — is the photo/image editing page. The product you get is the full version, but download only - no CD, no copy protection. We do permanently back up your purchase and program keys for you so if it's lost, you can grab it again at no cost. Just takes a whack at our contact form.
$30. Funny story. Funny to me, anyway. There's a very odd thing that happens with marketing. At $99, the program sells quite well. We're well down the ROI curve (after 22 years, you can probably hardly imagine how far) and we wanted to make it less expensive. So we dropped the price to $49.95. It stopped selling. Not slowed down - I mean stopped. We put it back up to $99, and it immediately began selling again.
Huh, quoth we. So we put up a set of offers that said if you have this or that product, we'd sell it to you for $49.95. We don't ask for proof, we actually don't give a northbound rat's southern end, we just wanted to sell it for $49.95. Sure enough, it sold just fine. $99 value, a bargain at $49.95. I think. I guess.
Anyway, again, some years pass, and we're further yet into ridiculous ROI (I should have mentioned that when it was new, the software retailed for about $1000/copy, was marketed through dealers and distributors, used in Hollywood and TV and so on, and we sold many, many copies.) We were almost a year into making something entirely different for the Mac, and Wi is just sitting there, just had a decent upgrade, doing just fine, but I'm still thinking it can be dropped further. I'd really like to see more "regular" people using it. It's certainly easy enough for any basic work, my kids all used it, it's just god-awful powerful if you stretch its legs. Which isn't a bad thing, at least, IMHO.
So we tried. Several times, several prices. Fact: There is no low price point that works. Then, whilst perusing some online coupons for something unrelated that I really had to work hard to dig up to get a discount on something for a friend, it suddenly occurred to me that if we had something "hidden", it might turn into a little bit of a bargain for the end user, plus add a little bit of that "found a deal" excitement.
Sure enough, as long as we didn't actually mention that page, a slow but steady trickle of people found it and got WI for that price, pleasing the heck out of me.
So that's the story of the $30 price. All I can say is I write code. I'm no artist, as several posters here have taken me to task for, and I am no marketing guy. I don't pretend to understand why pricing works the way it does, and I find it more than a little annoying, I'd much rather sell 100+ copies a day for $10 than 20 copies at $50, but that simply doesn't work.
[grin] For the love of criminy, if you post AC and don't sign your posts, how is anyone supposed to know one AC post from another? Did you ever think of that? Are you aware that there are more than two or even three AC posters on slashdot at any one time? It's an amazing idea, I know, but someday, you'll see another AC post and then it'll suddenly hit you: How will people know I'm me, if I look like I'm them? Think it over. It's a toughie, all right!
I then made a direct comparison between those $30 photo editing applications and the GIMP.
Which is exactly what I was responding to. Not any indirect, implied comparison not obvious and not mentioned in your text. Which is a perfectly rational and reasonable response to your statement. However, let me re-phrase so we're clear: WI can outperform any online app for photo processing. WI can also outperform the Gimp for photo processing given only reasonably equivalent hardware to run on. WI can also outperform both for features and in many other venues. The Gimp, as we know, is free. I also happen to like it, and am very comfortable with it and how it works, and use it productively from time to time on my Redhat and Mac systems. Wi is not free and as far as I know, has not, as yet, been made to run under Linux / crossover / wine. It is, however, not expensive, and for the money, you can't do better under Windows and that statement absolutely does include the Gimp, which, while useful, free and so forth, is not currently at anywhere near the same level of functionality.
You have brought these things up simply as an excuse to talk up your own (rather ugly) image editing software that is clearly aimed at a totally different type of image processing and end user to the software under discussion here, which is consumer photo editing.
(a) I have no qualms whatsoever talking about my software. I am quite pleased with it, thank you. Your attempt to turn that into a "bad thing" is utterly silly and I can't imagine why you would think you're doing something reasonable when you try to impugn my motives. Why would I not be a fan of my own software unless I felt it wasn't up to par, eh? Am I supposed to feel guilty for asking for $30 for it or something? If you're of the mind that "commercial" = "bad", then we're simply on different wavelengths, but please, don't think that I agree - on the contrary, I think such an attitude is self-destructive, not to mention naive in the extreme. You do like to eat, right? Me too, strangely enough. Can you imagine that? How... greedy... of me!
(b) You are 100% mistaken in regard to your idea that we don't do consumer photo editing. We do. Extremely well. You can even customize the interface so that when it comes up, all you face are photo editing tools, everything right there at your fingertips, and every operation is faster in WI, UI-wise, than it is in the Gimp because we provide a more sophisticated selection model that takes fewer mouse operations. That makes the photo editing workflow faster and easier and in the end, more precise. The layering engine is far more sophisticated and so compositing is easier and more powerful, but again, that's not an apology, and that's not irrelevant to consumer photo editing, either. Nor is the ability to apply sophisticated special effects. You might like to think so, but I'm afraid that's simply not the case.
I never claimed the GIMP was comparable to any product other than these online photo editing tools and other traditional cheap ($30) photo editing tools.
I'll be as gentle as I can with this, since you missed it somehow and I'm quite certain you're not just trolling me, but... that $30 tool I brought up? The one you explicitly stated you were making a direct comparison with? That's our software.
Either way I believe thick client FLOSS apps have far more to offer than online thin-clients.
I completely agree. No matter if they download apps to the thin client, or if they try to run on images remotely, there's just no way for them to meet the same kind of performance metrics until they work themselves up into a true thick client, and then what was the point anyway?
Re the Gimp's new engine, bravo. That should be a fabulous upgrade, and I look forward to it.
You insist that a $30 piece of software can do consumer level photo editing better than the GIMP can.
Yes, I do claim precisely that. Can the Gimp non-destructively rotate a torn image fragment back into frame such that it can be readjusted later as required? Hmmm? Can it mix said rotation with other geometrics, such as putting a "clown nose" on a picture, yet not putting it on the picture? And still un-rotate the image underneath the nose effect? Live, of course? Can the Gimp do CMYK separations for a pro print of your photo? Can the Gimp manage over 70 different layer modes including non-destructive geometric (and other) effects? Can the Gimp switch between pre-select and post-select for speed? Can the Gimp consistently remove zits and pimples and furrows with exactly one mouse operation (drag, release) per blemish? All of this on consumer photos, of course. And all of it really fast and clean. Does the Gimp offer a custom toolbox/caddy of whatever you like for your current operating habits, such as photo editing, heightfield work, compositing, texture generation? Does the Gimp let me apply splined animation of area selections in real-time so I can track a lightning bolt across dad's bald head coming from mom's outstretched finger? What, you expect me to apologize because we can also do pro-level compositing and fx? Help me out here. You're a funny person. I like you. Even if you do post AC. Don't worry, I always read at -1.:-)
The original poster said, and I quote verbatim, first, "So you're implying, from your very own post, that the GIMP can not [various things]" -- so it is clear that the poster is talking about the Gimp on the one hand, and not an online program, and then they go on to say "and that a $30 consumer photo-retouching application can do it better?" -- so it is clear that they again are not talking about an online program, but about the program I was referring to as compared to the Gimp. Hence my Gimp-centric and $30-app centric reply.
So tune up those reading skills and you too can enjoy getting the same meaning out of posts that people put into them! It's fun! It's exciting! It's like skimming, only you actually read for content!
[note: Full comprehension reading takes longer, and may make your head hurt. Side effects may include sudden realizations you've been wrong, abrupt changes in your perception of reality, and an inability to formulate insulting responses that previously came easily to you. Do not attempt if you have high blood pressure, artificial preconceptions, or are taking mood-altering drugs. The FDA has not approved the full comprehension approach for use within a non-rational environment. Your results may vary. Always ask your doctor before attempting to make an abrupt change in lifestyle. If pregnant or breast-feeding, avoid these posts. Post may contain sarcasm, irony, blunt humor and 100% natural abuse. Produced in a facility that stores nuts.]
The answer - as embodied in the above workflow - neither misses nor changes the point. Yes, I was saying, or implying, we can do it better. Also that we can do it faster. We can do it cleaner. We can do it more flexibly. And we can do more - a lot more. The post you refer to gives a reference workflow. I expect that poster to show me how the Gimp can replicate that workflow in time, features and convenience. Especially after that (cough) insightful "what planet are you from" crack.:-) It is one thing to be a fan of the Gimp (and for the record, I am - it's a great free tool for light work) but it is entirely another thing to credit it with a competitive level of functionality it doesn't actually offer.
Grandma, after that lesbian porn incident with grandpa and the visit from the department of elder services, I'm not so sure about this. How about a nice cup of tea instead?
Flamebait, eh? I suppose I deserved that. A lot of people think the Gimp is comparable to big gun programs because they're just not familiar with the kinds of things they can do with more powerful systems. So here's a more direct response that makes the point with workflow.
Here's what I want to do, a workflow that takes about three to five minutes in my software. By all means, tell me how to do it using the Gimp, which I of course have a copy of:
I want to take this image I have of a face, and I want to move three separate water-impact effects across it arbitrarily, watching how the waves interact with each other live, so I can catch the exact point where the effect is perfect. I don't want this effect on the image though, the image must remain untouched - so it can only show on the final composite image. I accomplish this easily by creating each water effect in its own geometric distortion layer above the face layer and subsequently prodding the layers around position-wise. Now I want to morph the shape of the image's eyes to match those of another face. There's a tool for that; I just do it, takes about 30 seconds. A little masking, and the new eyes overlay the originals. Next, I want a live particle system attached to a pin on the chest. I'll take an additive fireworks display and lava flow, and I also want a ray-traced diamond (brilliant-cut) on the pin, spinning in 3d, reflecting and refracting the particle system through the gem. Again, I want to see this live so I can pick the still I prefer from the stream, and the original image must remain untouched. Next, I want a trail of ants around the edge of the image; I'll apply these with a brush, and as I drag the brush around, the ants rotate to follow the brush as if they were following a trail of bread-crumbs, they lay down shadows, randomly reposition, resize and flip so as to create a "community" of ants all more-or-less following a trail. They look very, very real, though they are made from a single brush. Now I want to color key out the background on the main image, because I want to underlay a different backdrop. We can't disturb any of the effects, though, or change the image's actual transparency; the color key itself must also be a non-destructive layer effect. Now that the new backdrop has been underlaid, I'll move this to CMYK space (still without affecting the original in any way), mix UCR and GCR techniques to match my printer's best press results, and generate fully prepress ready plates. The image is now a stack of layered effects on top of the original face, with the exception of the backdrop, which is lower in the stack than the face. The face was never touched during the entire process, and so every effect and change can be keyed on or off by simply turning layer controls on or off, or using layer effect levels to mute or enhance the effects. The individual layers are all viewable at the same time, separate from one another, each in their own window, and at the same time as the composite master image which contains the final result. All layers and effects are still live, editable, undoable, and so on.
On seeing the results, my client wants the eyes returned to normal, and he wants an emerald in the pin, muttering something mostly incomprehensible about "blood diamonds" and "hollywood." So I click off (disable) the morph layer, change the materials refraction of the stone to that of emerald and the cut as well, re-generate the 3d object into a new layer (I'm keeping the diamond hidden in its own disabled layer in case they change their minds again, unpredictable finks that they are), republish the plates, and I'm done. Total additional time, about 30 seconds.
For a point of reference, I can do this entire process considerably faster than I was able to type a description of it, everything is built-in and ready to go, what is required of me is simply area selection, slider adjustments and so on; so that's the kind of performance I'm looking for from the Gimp. So. Taking the claim that the Gimp is just as capable at face value, how do I get this workflow working in the Gimp into under, say, five minutes? Over to you.
HLL image processing is a joke. Plain and simple. It'd actually be better - and probably a lot faster - to hand the images to a machine that is running serious, efficient code, and get the job done that way. Flex... Aside from the name, which is actually a 6800/6809 CPU operating system from the 1970's, the Flex engine is just more crawl-ware to complement Java and the rest of the web 2.0 silliness. And Flash? Are you kidding? Just benchmark that sucker against a few cores (or even one!) running close-to-the-metal image processing and see how silly you feel. What's the line... oh yes: That's just how you feel when you bring boxing gloves to a gunfight. That breeze you're feeling is blowing through your chest cavity.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I've got a 5000 in the rec room. It doesn't take 1080i. Or 1080p. Fact. It doesn't matter what "projector central" says, the unit does not do 1080, period, end of story. No BS involved. What is your agenda that you deny reality?
Actually, I like Sony just fine. This is a technical glitch I think they need to fix, very similar to the one MS is facing here. My response was based on the TFS's starting out with this: "Following weeks of headlines touting strong sales for Blu-ray disk", and then mentioning the XBox 360's HD add-on as the "format's leading playback device." which I felt glossed over the facts that the PS3 is one of the Blue-Ray's leading playback devices, and it has a far wider-ranging issue that affects all disks. Finally, I'm not siding with either one - I own both systems and the Wii and am well satisfied with all three of them. My Sony projection system does 1080p native. So I suggest crawl back under your bridge, Mr. AC Troll; maybe you'll find someone there who can help you pry your foot out of your mouth.
(a) 720p is, technically speaking, HD. (b) InFocus, as of last year, was still selling projectors that were 720p max such as the model 5000 (feed them 1080i or 1080p and get garbage or nothing — no downscaling.) (c) standards, unfortunately, cannot be watched. What can be watched are implementations; and some implementations lack 1080i/p capability. The bottom line is, some hardware setups require 720p regardless of your preconceptions; and the PS3 refuses to do that. Because of these facts, standards aside, the bottom line is that for those people who have such hardware, the PS3's Blue-Ray capability isn't any significant amount better than progressive scan standard DVD. You can preach about standards until you're blue (ha!) in the face, but that won't make the PS3 work any better in these situations.
The PS3's Blue-Ray player will not play in HD unless you have a 1080p or 1080i capable display. Since many displays sold until very recently were 720p max, especially projector systems, this puts quite a "ding" in the experience of the PS3's Blue-Ray playback.
What the PS3 does for a system like that is drops back to 480p, which is for all intents and purposes the same as a standard DVD player running in progressive scan. Except that the disk cost $30 instead of $15, that is. These circumstances make the presence of a Blue-Ray player in the PS3 somewhat moot for those with 720p maximum systems.
Sony is of course well aware of this, and despite the recent revelation that the PS3 has a built-in scaler, none of the many updates since the machine was released addresses the problem.
There is a DRM-related agreement (or perhaps I should say conspiracy) with the entertainment industry that says that no component system will be allowed to output more than 720p, but 720p itself is allowed. Standing witness to this is Sony's own stand-alone player which has component out and the ability to do 720p without any problems.
So it isn't only Microsoft that has produced an incomplete or broken solution in the high definition disk arena; Sony's implementation isn't without its serious problems.
Gullibility, fear of the unknown, and the need for a parental figure often are. These very deep feelings don't limit themselves to the uneducated or the unintelligent; people with every level of cognitive ability, every level of education, and every degree of communications skills are subject to the overwhelming pressure brought to bear by one of these, or various combinations of more than one. Add in the joy of participating in group-think, and you've got a social abscess in the making.
The bottom line is that things are what they are, and no degree of belief will change the underlying natural facts. That's the sad news for worshippers; as someone else mentioned up above, the belief that the sun spun 'round the earth by nearly the entire population did absolutely nothing to alter the reality, and eventually, the reality won over the preconception - no matter the degree of belief. The same will happen with your "god", only unfortunately, it'll take long enough - like the sub belief - that you will almost certainly waste your entire life following an illusion.
Unfortunately, as a social force, religion does a great deal of harm, serving to retard morals (by promoting homophobia and misogyny for just two examples) and promote laws that are harmful or progress-retarding for society. The rest of us put up with the social retardation religion spills all over everything in the name of tolerance, because we know that tolerance has a higher social value than getting rid of religion does. Until religion really gets out of hand, of course. No one is going to put up with an actual theocracy in the USA; we're too close to that as it is.
Anyway, don't worry about your deep feelings. You probably can't change your situation, and the rest of us will tolerate your delusions just so long as you keep your nose out of our lives in terms of laws and so forth.
How (cough) clever. Well, you're half right, and as that's the best you've done in the entire thread, entirely aside from your juvenile hyperbole and name-calling, I'll leave it at that. You have a lovely day, Mr. AC.
No. Here's your problem: Plato provides contemporaneous, different-sourced confirmation of Socrates (as do many others.) Paul is a character of whom we know nothing other than he appears in the same book as Christ; because he does not, as far as we know, exist outside the bible, he no more provides another source of confirmation than does Cathy Ryan provide proof that John Ryan was real in a Tom Clancy book. You're trying to make the snake eat its own tail here.
The bible is one source. Everything in it is part of that same source. It is a doubtful source for several reasons, not the least of which is it reports supernatural events. Also, there are no originals, there are no records of originals, there are no records of events it reports that it says were country-wide, it contradicts itself, and it has highly visible ulterior motives for existing that have nothing to do with Christ, that is, control and political power, as amply demonstrated by various Christian political acts over the last 2000 years.
Because the bible is doubtful, it is imperative that additional confirming sources be discovered if we are to be expected to take it seriously. At no time would it be appropriate to lose sight of the fact that so far, not one of the events involving Christ, or even the very existence of Christ himself, have been independently verified by anyone outside the Christian tradition, or anyone at all who lived when Christ is reported to have lived. Given that, Occam's razor says it's most likely a historical fiction.
Oh, that's to be expected. This is slashdot; I had the temerity to bring up commercial software and to speak honestly about the Gimp's shortcomings with regard to it. There's no possible response on /. but a frenzy of "yur web site sukz, dude" and "no, gimp is it, yo" and so on. Doesn't faze me in the least.
The web designer, perhaps someday. It isn't relevant to the software at all, and any impression you've gotten from the posts here or your own visit that the site doesn't perform well for us is entirely wrong. Changing it isn't called for, frankly. Sure, it'd be nice if it was all web 2.0 and all, but frankly, I don't care a great deal. That's not what we do; we're not artists, we're programmers. I kind of like the idea that it filters out the superficial visitors anyway. Those who are looking for functionality find their way to us eventually. They know the difference between a web page and a software feature. If you really won't look at something because of a website, all I can say is you're a very different person than I am, and that's just fine.
The GUI revamp - no. Why? Because the software has looked, and worked, like that for literally decades, since about 1985 when the first functions began to work. We've got a customer base that is very familiar with the interface, even down to the particular icons, and changing it would be a disservice to them. As far as I am concerned, they gave us money; I owe them consistency, at the very least. And they aren't asking for interface changes. You, on the other hand, are not a customer, and you want an interface change. You can imagine to whom I give more priority here, can't you? Those who have given me money. Do you think that's unreasonable?
There are no such words on our testimonials pages - I checked both the users testimonials and the reviewers. Then I used google to search the entire site, and I came up with one use each, both on the WinImages product page, one in context of our own software, one in context of "hate letters" and again, I think what we have here is a great deal of over-sensitivity on your part. If these things actually bother you, I'm just stunned. They don't bother me at all, truly. On the other hand, they aren't particularly significant, so just for you, I'll yank 'em right now. :-)
Interesting, but I respectfully disagree. Time will tell, of course. Thanks for your post.
Not to wander too far off topic, but do you see the humor in posting this...
...directly over your signature, to wit...
Why should I have to download or buy software to get basic features like resizing and cropping?
TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Gave me a good laugh. Thanks.
Would it really, now? Let's look at your (baseless) assertion. WI is faster to process, consumes less RAM for the executable, starts and restarts quicker, and can be *easily* configured for any set of simple (or not) operations you prefer, such as clipping, redeye, rotation, brightness, whatever you like, really. They're called "operation caddies" and they make any particular workflow a breeze. Redeye? One click for the op, one area selection for the eye. Done. Clipping? One click for the op, one area selection for the clip. Thumbnails and viewer? Built-in, of course. Rotation? Sure. 90 degree increments, free, perspective, arbitrarily swirl, whatever strikes your fancy. Or you can rotate the thumbnail and leave the image as is. Or rotate them both.
Now, you argue (oddly) that using WI would be like "using a sledgehammer to drive in a pin tack." The implication is (I suppose) that because WI has all this other stuff available to you (it's not in your face unless you need it or ask for it, of course) that it somehow will either bewilder the user (why? do people actually fail to use the Gimp because it has script-fu?) or that it will over-do the job (a sledgehamme would certainly over-drive a pin tack) which is a blatantly incorrect assertion - there is no such correspondence. So perhaps you will take a moment to explain your heartfelt statement. What makes you, as a software user, unable to use Wi, do you think? It can't be the "overdrive", because that is just nonsense. Are you confused because WI is powerful? Are you normally frightened of software that is highly capable? Does that mean to you that you will simply be unable to function when faced with it? Seriously, what is on your mind when you say these things?
I'm really trying not to laugh at you. Honestly. Look. You think WI has some complex interface for doing these things? It's an area selection tool, just like the Gimp's - pick a rectangle or an ellipse or the entire image or whatever you like - and pick an operation. If the operation has parameters - such as brightness - you set those where you want them, and then select, and you're done. What exactly about this process intimidates you? Or are you under the impression that you have to do more than these simple and common user interactions? If so, what, and why? Maybe this leads to your "sledgehammer" analogy somehow?
I hardly know where to start. Hmmm. Well, first of all, it would be relevant because I started the thread at the root talking about it. Someone seemed to find that interesting; it's modded +5 and has been for hours. I dunno, slashdot moderation is pretty busted, I'm the first to agree, but still, +5? It must have had some merit. Secondly, there's no "pretending" it is good at this type of editing, it is, in point of fact, outstanding at it. Furthermore, it is better at it than then Gimp by virtue of speed, efficiency, range of available tools, flexibility of the live, non-destructive effects engine (which by the way, you don't see or "use", users just benefit in that they can do things like move effects around after they are applied to an image.) Finally, I'm welcome to say anything I like, just as you are. Trust me, no one went and appointed you my personal censor while you were sleeping. Funny thing about that.
More nonsense. You make a pretty concrete ass
Nope. I posted a 0-level post comparing my software, a thick client, to thin clients. I mentioned a bunch of capabilities of my stuff. Someone responded (100% incorrectly) that the Gimp would do what I had said my $30 software would. I responded, disagreed, etc, etc. At this point, and ever since then, the thread has been about Gimp vs my $30 software.
I never seem to have as much trouble following threads as some of you folks are experiencing this morning. Is there a coffee shortage or something?
Close enough.
The first poster said, and again this is a direct quote: "Or you can get GIMP for $0 without looking very hard at all, which is also perfectly capable of doing everything you mention and more." Here are some of the things I mentioned: "RAM-based, N-layer handling, real-time nondestructive effects engine written close to the metal with live geometric warp layers, masking and animation." then I added this " level photos, retouch them, or process the living heck out of very high resolution images if that's your intent, set people on fire, morph them, all manner of sophisticated things"
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Gimp does not have a non-destructive effects engine, nor geometric warp layers, and that makes the poster's statement "is also perfectly capable of doing everything you mention" untrue. It is also highly relevant; generally, the first thing people do with our product is whack some effects on pictures. Finding out that they (the effects) can move, undo, redo, reconfigure and mix non-destructively makes most users delighted. The Gimp can't do this. At all. This is the basis for my entire response - the poster responding to me was flat out wrong.
My software - the very $30 software I was talking about all along - is what can do all this. That's what I was talking about from line one. You know, it does this: "RAM-based, N-layer handling, real-time nondestructive effects engine written close to the metal with live geometric warp layers, masking and animation, level photos, retouch them, or process the living heck out of very high resolution images if that's your intent, set people on fire, morph them, all manner of sophisticated things" Plus it does all the stuff in my "misguided" rant. Much of the processing it can do, and the Gimp cannot, is related to processing photos. Particularly in the area of more efficient UI and live,layer-based effects. Are you clear now? It was relevant because that was what I was talking about, that was what the poster responded to, and that was what was at issue. No more, no less.
I have not at any time compared the Gimp to online software. I have compared it to my own software, primarily because I am familiar with both and I am not, feature-wise, familiar with said online software. Go on. Check my posts. Not a word about online software vs the Gimp, though I did indulge in a general beating up on online software's ability to perform because of network and HLL issues in the very first post.
Therefore nothing - you got it all wrong, and naturally, your conclusions are all wrong, too.
Look. I started the thread. It's an 0-level post. The discussion I started was about my experience and my opinions about thick and thin clients. Some AC posted about the Gimp, making a comparison to what I was talking about - my software - and the Gimp's ability to do photo work. I responded, not very well, by blowing him off - because I knew the Gimp wasn't comparable to our software both in the area of photo editing, and mor
Yes, it is WinImages. You just have to grab it from the right page to get that price, which we offer via paypal only. That page — entirely coincidentally, I swear — is the photo/image editing page. The product you get is the full version, but download only - no CD, no copy protection. We do permanently back up your purchase and program keys for you so if it's lost, you can grab it again at no cost. Just takes a whack at our contact form.
$30. Funny story. Funny to me, anyway. There's a very odd thing that happens with marketing. At $99, the program sells quite well. We're well down the ROI curve (after 22 years, you can probably hardly imagine how far) and we wanted to make it less expensive. So we dropped the price to $49.95. It stopped selling. Not slowed down - I mean stopped. We put it back up to $99, and it immediately began selling again.
Huh, quoth we. So we put up a set of offers that said if you have this or that product, we'd sell it to you for $49.95. We don't ask for proof, we actually don't give a northbound rat's southern end, we just wanted to sell it for $49.95. Sure enough, it sold just fine. $99 value, a bargain at $49.95. I think. I guess.
Anyway, again, some years pass, and we're further yet into ridiculous ROI (I should have mentioned that when it was new, the software retailed for about $1000/copy, was marketed through dealers and distributors, used in Hollywood and TV and so on, and we sold many, many copies.) We were almost a year into making something entirely different for the Mac, and Wi is just sitting there, just had a decent upgrade, doing just fine, but I'm still thinking it can be dropped further. I'd really like to see more "regular" people using it. It's certainly easy enough for any basic work, my kids all used it, it's just god-awful powerful if you stretch its legs. Which isn't a bad thing, at least, IMHO.
So we tried. Several times, several prices. Fact: There is no low price point that works. Then, whilst perusing some online coupons for something unrelated that I really had to work hard to dig up to get a discount on something for a friend, it suddenly occurred to me that if we had something "hidden", it might turn into a little bit of a bargain for the end user, plus add a little bit of that "found a deal" excitement.
Sure enough, as long as we didn't actually mention that page, a slow but steady trickle of people found it and got WI for that price, pleasing the heck out of me.
So that's the story of the $30 price. All I can say is I write code. I'm no artist, as several posters here have taken me to task for, and I am no marketing guy. I don't pretend to understand why pricing works the way it does, and I find it more than a little annoying, I'd much rather sell 100+ copies a day for $10 than 20 copies at $50, but that simply doesn't work.
[grin] For the love of criminy, if you post AC and don't sign your posts, how is anyone supposed to know one AC post from another? Did you ever think of that? Are you aware that there are more than two or even three AC posters on slashdot at any one time? It's an amazing idea, I know, but someday, you'll see another AC post and then it'll suddenly hit you: How will people know I'm me, if I look like I'm them? Think it over. It's a toughie, all right!
Which is exactly what I was responding to. Not any indirect, implied comparison not obvious and not mentioned in your text. Which is a perfectly rational and reasonable response to your statement. However, let me re-phrase so we're clear: WI can outperform any online app for photo processing. WI can also outperform the Gimp for photo processing given only reasonably equivalent hardware to run on. WI can also outperform both for features and in many other venues. The Gimp, as we know, is free. I also happen to like it, and am very comfortable with it and how it works, and use it productively from time to time on my Redhat and Mac systems. Wi is not free and as far as I know, has not, as yet, been made to run under Linux / crossover / wine. It is, however, not expensive, and for the money, you can't do better under Windows and that statement absolutely does include the Gimp, which, while useful, free and so forth, is not currently at anywhere near the same level of functionality.
(a) I have no qualms whatsoever talking about my software. I am quite pleased with it, thank you. Your attempt to turn that into a "bad thing" is utterly silly and I can't imagine why you would think you're doing something reasonable when you try to impugn my motives. Why would I not be a fan of my own software unless I felt it wasn't up to par, eh? Am I supposed to feel guilty for asking for $30 for it or something? If you're of the mind that "commercial" = "bad", then we're simply on different wavelengths, but please, don't think that I agree - on the contrary, I think such an attitude is self-destructive, not to mention naive in the extreme. You do like to eat, right? Me too, strangely enough. Can you imagine that? How... greedy... of me!
(b) You are 100% mistaken in regard to your idea that we don't do consumer photo editing. We do. Extremely well. You can even customize the interface so that when it comes up, all you face are photo editing tools, everything right there at your fingertips, and every operation is faster in WI, UI-wise, than it is in the Gimp because we provide a more sophisticated selection model that takes fewer mouse operations. That makes the photo editing workflow faster and easier and in the end, more precise. The layering engine is far more sophisticated and so compositing is easier and more powerful, but again, that's not an apology, and that's not irrelevant to consumer photo editing, either. Nor is the ability to apply sophisticated special effects. You might like to think so, but I'm afraid that's simply not the case.
I'll be as gentle as I can with this, since you missed it somehow and I'm quite certain you're not just trolling me, but... that $30 tool I brought up? The one you explicitly stated you were making a direct comparison with? That's our software.
I completely agree. No matter if they download apps to the thin client, or if they try to run on images remotely, there's just no way for them to meet the same kind of performance metrics until they work themselves up into a true thick client, and then what was the point anyway?
Re the Gimp's new engine, bravo. That should be a fabulous upgrade, and I look forward to it.
Yes, I do claim precisely that. Can the Gimp non-destructively rotate a torn image fragment back into frame such that it can be readjusted later as required? Hmmm? Can it mix said rotation with other geometrics, such as putting a "clown nose" on a picture, yet not putting it on the picture? And still un-rotate the image underneath the nose effect? Live, of course? Can the Gimp do CMYK separations for a pro print of your photo? Can the Gimp manage over 70 different layer modes including non-destructive geometric (and other) effects? Can the Gimp switch between pre-select and post-select for speed? Can the Gimp consistently remove zits and pimples and furrows with exactly one mouse operation (drag, release) per blemish? All of this on consumer photos, of course. And all of it really fast and clean. Does the Gimp offer a custom toolbox/caddy of whatever you like for your current operating habits, such as photo editing, heightfield work, compositing, texture generation? Does the Gimp let me apply splined animation of area selections in real-time so I can track a lightning bolt across dad's bald head coming from mom's outstretched finger? What, you expect me to apologize because we can also do pro-level compositing and fx? Help me out here. You're a funny person. I like you. Even if you do post AC. Don't worry, I always read at -1. :-)
The original poster said, and I quote verbatim, first, "So you're implying, from your very own post, that the GIMP can not [various things]" -- so it is clear that the poster is talking about the Gimp on the one hand, and not an online program, and then they go on to say "and that a $30 consumer photo-retouching application can do it better?" -- so it is clear that they again are not talking about an online program, but about the program I was referring to as compared to the Gimp. Hence my Gimp-centric and $30-app centric reply.
So tune up those reading skills and you too can enjoy getting the same meaning out of posts that people put into them! It's fun! It's exciting! It's like skimming, only you actually read for content!
The answer - as embodied in the above workflow - neither misses nor changes the point. Yes, I was saying, or implying, we can do it better. Also that we can do it faster. We can do it cleaner. We can do it more flexibly. And we can do more - a lot more. The post you refer to gives a reference workflow. I expect that poster to show me how the Gimp can replicate that workflow in time, features and convenience. Especially after that (cough) insightful "what planet are you from" crack. :-) It is one thing to be a fan of the Gimp (and for the record, I am - it's a great free tool for light work) but it is entirely another thing to credit it with a competitive level of functionality it doesn't actually offer.
Just tell them no. We did. Several times. :-)
Grandma, after that lesbian porn incident with grandpa and the visit from the department of elder services, I'm not so sure about this. How about a nice cup of tea instead?
I'm not implying it, I'm outright saying it. By all means, show me where I've gone wrong. :-)
Flamebait, eh? I suppose I deserved that. A lot of people think the Gimp is comparable to big gun programs because they're just not familiar with the kinds of things they can do with more powerful systems. So here's a more direct response that makes the point with workflow.
Here's what I want to do, a workflow that takes about three to five minutes in my software. By all means, tell me how to do it using the Gimp, which I of course have a copy of:
I want to take this image I have of a face, and I want to move three separate water-impact effects across it arbitrarily, watching how the waves interact with each other live, so I can catch the exact point where the effect is perfect. I don't want this effect on the image though, the image must remain untouched - so it can only show on the final composite image. I accomplish this easily by creating each water effect in its own geometric distortion layer above the face layer and subsequently prodding the layers around position-wise. Now I want to morph the shape of the image's eyes to match those of another face. There's a tool for that; I just do it, takes about 30 seconds. A little masking, and the new eyes overlay the originals. Next, I want a live particle system attached to a pin on the chest. I'll take an additive fireworks display and lava flow, and I also want a ray-traced diamond (brilliant-cut) on the pin, spinning in 3d, reflecting and refracting the particle system through the gem. Again, I want to see this live so I can pick the still I prefer from the stream, and the original image must remain untouched. Next, I want a trail of ants around the edge of the image; I'll apply these with a brush, and as I drag the brush around, the ants rotate to follow the brush as if they were following a trail of bread-crumbs, they lay down shadows, randomly reposition, resize and flip so as to create a "community" of ants all more-or-less following a trail. They look very, very real, though they are made from a single brush. Now I want to color key out the background on the main image, because I want to underlay a different backdrop. We can't disturb any of the effects, though, or change the image's actual transparency; the color key itself must also be a non-destructive layer effect. Now that the new backdrop has been underlaid, I'll move this to CMYK space (still without affecting the original in any way), mix UCR and GCR techniques to match my printer's best press results, and generate fully prepress ready plates. The image is now a stack of layered effects on top of the original face, with the exception of the backdrop, which is lower in the stack than the face. The face was never touched during the entire process, and so every effect and change can be keyed on or off by simply turning layer controls on or off, or using layer effect levels to mute or enhance the effects. The individual layers are all viewable at the same time, separate from one another, each in their own window, and at the same time as the composite master image which contains the final result. All layers and effects are still live, editable, undoable, and so on.
On seeing the results, my client wants the eyes returned to normal, and he wants an emerald in the pin, muttering something mostly incomprehensible about "blood diamonds" and "hollywood." So I click off (disable) the morph layer, change the materials refraction of the stone to that of emerald and the cut as well, re-generate the 3d object into a new layer (I'm keeping the diamond hidden in its own disabled layer in case they change their minds again, unpredictable finks that they are), republish the plates, and I'm done. Total additional time, about 30 seconds.
For a point of reference, I can do this entire process considerably faster than I was able to type a description of it, everything is built-in and ready to go, what is required of me is simply area selection, slider adjustments and so on; so that's the kind of performance I'm looking for from the Gimp. So. Taking the claim that the Gimp is just as capable at face value, how do I get this workflow working in the Gimp into under, say, five minutes? Over to you.
The Gimp, eh? Boy, do you have a lot to learn about image processing. But that's the fun of being a newbie. Enjoy!
HLL image processing is a joke. Plain and simple. It'd actually be better - and probably a lot faster - to hand the images to a machine that is running serious, efficient code, and get the job done that way. Flex... Aside from the name, which is actually a 6800/6809 CPU operating system from the 1970's, the Flex engine is just more crawl-ware to complement Java and the rest of the web 2.0 silliness. And Flash? Are you kidding? Just benchmark that sucker against a few cores (or even one!) running close-to-the-metal image processing and see how silly you feel. What's the line... oh yes: That's just how you feel when you bring boxing gloves to a gunfight. That breeze you're feeling is blowing through your chest cavity. :-)