@AMiGR

Quote:

AMiGR wrote: @Hans Quote: According to Microsoft, OpenGL 2.0 will be possible if you can find a graphics driver that supports it. However, you'll have to sacrifice their fancy new DirectX-based desktop. Whether ATI or Nvidia can find a way to make them coexist I don't know. I wonder if they'll even bother. Both ATi and NVidia have publicly stated that they can make them co-exist. They will bother, because of their high-end OpenGL cards.

I must have missed their announcements. This is good news because I don't see people wanting to downgrade from their fancy new desktop just to be able to run certain pieces of software.

Hans

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

If its that good why not. If someone makes datatypes for amiga then good.
If not then its not worth it.

@jorkany

It is a better PNG, silly. PNG takes too much space. That's why digital camera manufacturers don't use PNG on their cameras.

_________________
- Ronald

All beer tastes bad.

@ronaldst
Not exactly true: Apparently a lot of professional photographers won't touch JPEG, and instead use RAW (which is totally uncompressed). In such a situation, PNG would make sense.

With memory cards being so huge these days, the argument for using something like PNG is increasingly strong...

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

@ChrisH

I think RAW uses some lossless compression because when I take photos in TIFF format they are twice as big as when I take photos in RAW format.

_________________
Join the Amigaworld.net Supporters Scheme and get your Supporter Tag

@Wol

Quote:

If possible allways take digital photos "RAW" , that way the detail is not lost, it's a nightmare trying to enhance or retouch a jpeg image when 90% off the image data is lost...(variable)

You're right about RAW being a beter option. However, JPEG isn't useless. I'd say for the average person about 80%+ of the time they simply take pictures, transfer to their PC, and then might print out a few. Rarely does the average Joe do anything significant to the image. JPEG is perfectly acceptable for those users. Additionally, manipulation can be done on JPEG images but yes not as refined as RAW. RAW typically will look better but again the average Joe is likely to not care as JPEG is good enough. If you are a Professional taking Professional shots then RAW is your best option.

What's wrong with microsoft making another filetype ? you do not have to use it when you do not want to ! It's just another filetype between many others.

And besides if it does what they claim "better quality for half the space" it isn't a bad thing I think. Altough with today's big storage media and fast broadband connections I doubt the need for it.

_________________
- Proud Member Of The Belgian Amigaclub Since 2003 -

The Belgian Amiga Club on FACEBOOK !

The Belgian Amiga Club Website

@ronaldst

Quote:

ronaldst wrote: @jorkany It is a better PNG, silly. PNG takes too much space. That's why digital camera manufacturers don't use PNG on their cameras.

PNG is lossless compression unlike JPG or WMP. And like a lot of things, PNG can end up being smaller or larger than other formats, dependent on what settings and image sizes are used, as well as what the image consists of colourwise.

@thread
Still, I really do have to laugh at:
Quote:

"One of the biggest reasons people upgrade their PCs is digital photos," Crow said, noting that Microsoft has been in contact with printer makers, digital camera companies and other unnamed industry partners while working on Windows Media Photo.

The reason people upgrade their PC is typically because their OS is so resource hungry/sluggish you need to make your machine better to make it useable. I can't say I recall anybody saying:

"Damn, you know I really must upgrade my PC to the latest xGHz (insert favourite CPU manufacturer) with xGB ram and one of those top end (insert favourite GPU manufacturer) cards because you know, my digital camera is just so darn slow at transferring all the GB of photos I have on it's massive 512MB memory card."

_________________
Test sig (new)

@Aminicle

Quote:

What's wrong with microsoft making another filetype ? you do not have to use it when you do not want to ! It's just another filetype between many others.

That you will be forced to use Windows to view it because it will be not open and open source/hoobye/tiny market/new OSs will have problems to view it if they cannot pay the licence (that sure it will be high) for use this filetype.Microsoft are clearly using their dominance in the market to impose a format that probably only will be possible to work with it in Windows.

_________________
No PowerPC, No Fun
Make Amiga Great Again

@_Steve_


Just noted: Some high end Samsung Digicams now save in PNG format
as well as RAW and JPEG..


Wol.

_________________
It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.~Albert Einstein

@Fransexy

It's bad enough as it is for me.
you used wmv in your title. wmv3 videos seem to be about now.
http://www.scarpar.com/~scarpar/images/movies/scarpar_176_144.wmv
DVPlayer does not look at them and mplayer does the audio
but locks up the system with the video. Looks like I will be
forced to use windows regardless of new developments.

Noel

@Wol

Quote:

Wol wrote: @Fransexy I'm not a fan of ANY lossy compression, it makes all photo's and movies look crap anyway.

dittoes.

Everything's PNG here.

Jesus, the whole reason everything supposedly evolved from analog to digital was Quality... then all the digital formats end up at the consumers end, at less quality than the analog due to lossy compression!

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@T_Bone

That's true, even the new so called HD tv has sh|tty color depth
compared to Analouge.


Wol.

_________________
It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.~Albert Einstein

@NoelFuller

Mplayer works here. well, on Windows anyway.

_________________
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." - Oscar Wilde

@NoelFuller

Have you tried MPlayer experimental version #2?
http://www.amigasoft.net/pages/mplayer/mplayer.asp

From the readme:
Quote:

2) Support for WMV3

Works fine here, albeit currently at a slower rate of speed than you might like.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@number6

Quote:

Have you tried MPlayer experimental version #2?

Plays audio, does not open video window whereas the September
version opens the window and crashes.

The codecs.conf for WMV3 Video says "status crashing" and the
shell output shows the video side is turned off during compilation.
The audio works with some kind of skip at regular intervals.

Noel

@DaveyD

Quote:

DaveyD wrote: @ChrisH I think RAW uses some lossless compression because when I take photos in TIFF format they are twice as big as when I take photos in RAW format.

Each pixel in a conventional sensor only captures one color, so for example
if you have 8 bit per pixel and a 5MP camera the size of one photo in raw
format it's 5MB (generally the bit per pixel are 10 or 12).
On TIFF not compressed you need at least 8(bits)x3(colors)x5MP = 12MB,
so the RAW seem compressed, but it's not.

As far as I know actually there is only one sensor that have 3 colors per pixel
an it is the foveon http://www.foveon.com

Regards,
Paolo

@NoelFuller

ok. My version:
1.0pre8.006
April 6, 2006
Requirements: Move codecs.conf file to a different place for safekeeping.
@afxgroup made this recommendation and it is correct for WMV3 playback.
You should get video playback if you do this.
Please try it and report back.

Edit (added):This thread on experimental version #2 may be helpful for you. My post #55 here.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 30-May-2006 at 02:49 PM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@Aminicle

Quote:

Aminicle wrote: What's wrong with microsoft making another filetype ? you do not have to use it when you do not want to ! It's just another filetype between many others. And besides if it does what they claim "better quality for half the space" it isn't a bad thing I think. Altough with today's big storage media and fast broadband connections I doubt the need for it.

And when it remains a non-open standard, or one requiring fee based licensing, along with their pushing imaging companies (camera makers, other devices) to 'adopt' their 'standard' and you're unable to view it easily, or at all, on anything other than Windows (or perhaps Mac), MS' strategy pays off yet again.

Score:
Consumers: -1

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@wegster

Quote:

And when it remains a non-open standard, or one requiring fee based licensing, along with their pushing imaging companies (camera makers, other devices) to 'adopt' their 'standard' and you're unable to view it easily, or at all, on anything other than Windows (or perhaps Mac), MS' strategy pays off yet again. Score: Consumers: -1

Yep. And we're talking about payment in terms of number of USD, not pennies
PER user PER codec. It...erm...can add to the price of a product.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*