Re: JPS Windows only Club

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997
>From: P3D Jonathan Gross writes:
>....................
>Thank you for acknowledging the unspecified "obvious good points" of the
>.neo file format which provide solutions to a number of problems
>specific to stereo image pairs.
>
>The difference is that in none of my postings have I ever advocated
>anybody adopting the .neo format as a standard for posting stereoscopic
>images on the Web. None.  

******  I specifically recall a posting to P3D in which you offered to
convert P3D member stereo images into the NEO format. The big question is of
course, how would any of us without your system be able to access those
images, no matter how great they may be?

>If you think that is what I am suggesting that
>.neo become a standard, then you are mistaken........

*****  My purpose in discussing this with you, initially direct instead of
on P3D, was solely for your benefit. Instead of realizing that, you have
started an anti-VRex campaign in which I can't join and which is totally
beside the point of the JPS file type. As I pointed out to you directly,
there are other stereo image formats which follow the pattern of JPS but
which offer no-loss compression and a number of other benefits. They are
equally as open and accessible as JPS, which is a benefit to stereo image
use or promotion, regardless of who you are or what you are trying to sell. 

What I did suggest to you is that as a stereo interested person, I would
like to view your images but can't. If you were to adopt the JPS format for
sharing stereo images, it would work to your benefit. You would no longer be
isolated in your own stereo world. It wouldn't in any way decrease the
qualities of your system to do so.

>
>My original request was simple:  I encoraged list member to request that
>the Mars photos be posted as stereo pairs because then everybody can use
>them. 

*****  Yes, so what? I had no objection to that request. I agree that it's
accessible to all, but not nearly as adaptable as putting them into JPS
versions would be. Consider that in order to accomplisht the same thing as a
JPS image, you would have to publish at least 15 different image files for
each and every image. That's quite an advantage. Unlike you, I don't like
the parallel images on Alexander Klein's site because they are so LOW in
resolution. He didn't provide a higher resolution crossed image, which I
would prefer for resolution reasons. And the files he presented can't be
viewed by anaglyph methods or LCS methods either, without first working on
the files on my own computer to prepare them. That's the whole point and it
has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular company, other than some
companies have provided examples of how to use the JPS format. You can use
it too, so why the big argument?

> Alexander Klein understands that.  It was actually two other list
>members who posted the original "Windows Only Club" entry, and I
>answered them by explaining that JPEG viewers work on JPS files, if you
>can get at the JPS files.  Paul Talbot understood and fixed that one.

*****  You are ignoring my own discussion of using JPG viewers for JPS
files, which preceeded the other solutions. The information you provided in
your answer came from informatin I provided to you and which has
subsequently been reinforced in the *white pages* information for the file type.

>
>Actually, I'm not criticizing the JPS file format characteristics so
>much as the process by which it was created, and the efforts to
>establish it as a "standard".

****  You seem to object to people getting involved in a people level
action? That's silly. You have been invited to get involved but are only
interested in throwing stones rather than thinking the situation through on
your own. A real standard is one that works best and allows the most
involvement. This standard has the strength of easy participation by anyone,
including yourself. You offer arguments that don't even apply to the file
type itself, what kind of input is that? What would you use as a standard? I
haven't heard one suggestion of a positive nature on this topic in all your
posts public or private.

>
>Contrary to what is being implied by yours and other's comments on my
>postings, I am not against standards.  I love JPEG (all flavors), TIFF
>(all levels), BMP (OS/2 and Windows), PCD (even though I can read it,
>but not create it), EPS, PCX,  TGA, GIF,  MAC, PIC, AVI, RAW, MPEG (1 &
>2), PNG, PPB, CGM, DXF, WMF, VRL, and the many, many others which I just
>forget right now.

*****  The point about JPS is that it is specifically a JPG stereo. JPG is
used on the internet far more than any of the other file types on your list.
I too use all those file types. They don't directly address the needs for
stereo presentation the way JPS does. As I pointed out to you there are
additional stereo image types which can be derived for each file type on the
list. They will only be developed and used as the need comes up. I
personally favor the PNS which is a stereo PNG, one of the best for stereo
due to it's royalty free no-loss compression factors. There is a BMS which
is a stereo BMP conforming to the basic BMP standard but using the JPS file
layout. I wouldn't want to use that on the internet, but it offers full
resolution on a local PC.  What could be simpler? What could possibly be
considered as a standard that is better than adapting existing standards?

>
>The publics problem is not a lack of standards, but a proliferation of
>them.

*****  That's exactly the whole point. Very well said!!! Listen to your own
words. The point of JPS is to use existing standards in useful ways rather
than proliferate additional standards that are completely new. We the people
don't need further proliferation of proprietary formats!!!

>
>So, before I support, yet-another "public standard", I feel that the
>effected community should:

****  What's to support? It exists and can be used. If you don't use it, I
can't see your images, or have to do special adaptation work to do so. It's
your customers who lose out if they can't access JPS images, though I
suspect providing access to JPS in your own software would be extremely easy
and take nothing at all away from how it works or it's quality. It's just a
matter of opening the door, not building a new house!!!

>
>1)  Establish a set of REQUIREMENTS which are open to review.
>2)  Create a set of alternative proposals which are subject to public
>review.
>3)  Let an open committee with broad representation select the standard.
>4)  Publish the standard, and establish a schedule for review and
>update.

*****  We'd still be waiting for JPS files two years from now and in the
mean time, the many companies faced with what image formats to use, now in
1997, would have imposed a dozen new formats none of which would be
compatible with each other. Sorry, I can't accept that notion as
preferrable. The need existed now, and I'm satisfied with the range of
choices made which conform to the most important criteria - open public
access to adaptive use of existing standards of all types. That leaves it
open enough for anything I can think of in a more specific sense.

>
>JPS is not a public standard, or even, as far as I can tell, a defacto
>standard. 

******  It is obviously a defacto standard due to the benefits I stated in
the above paragraph. And it is public in that it uses existing public
standards creatively and openly. If you have further issues, state them, or
adapt them into this open format.

> JPS does not address a number of important issues specific to
>stereoscopic pairs, 

*****  It specifically addresses all pertinent issues regarding stereo
pairs. If you have others not present, you haven't named them.

>to high quality electronic imaging,

*****  It addresses high quality by providing the highest quality possible
within the JPG standard, and this is much higher than a typical parallel
viewable image by miles!!!! What other single image type can provide so many
different stereo viewing methods? (DepthCharge doesn't have a lock on
multiple viewing parameters!!!)

> and to copyright
>protection.

*****  This is a bogus issue! Does JPEG address these issues? Does BMP
address these issues? Is there ANY public standard currently in existence
that addresses these issues? If so, the methods applied in creating JPS can
easily be applied to that standard. So, you have no valid argument. If you
are referring to things that current formats don't address, then you want to
create a completely new file format. That's unnecessary proliferation,
despite any advantages you may have in mind. You are welcome to go ahead and
develop such new standards, and I'd be happy as a member of the public to
comment or provide input to such a development. Fine. BUT, it doesn't answer
to the immediate need for freely exchangeable, adaptable stereo files. JPS
uses the current most widely used standard and can be applied to the other
standards as desired.

Never in any of my letters to you did I indicate that JPS was anything other
than what it is. The door is still wide open for your other concerns to be
met in whatever way is appropriate. But it takes additional time. In the
meantime, the defacto standard of JPS is and will continue to be used to a
wider and wider degree. That doesn't in any way impinge on the concerns you
have for other issues.

>
>Pardon me if I dont support JPS right now.  BTW, Im NOT asking you to
>adopt .neo as a replacement for JPS either.
>

****  No one offered to adopt NEO, but the point is that you can't share
your NEO files with me, but I can freely share JPS with you. Whether or not
you use it is up to you. At that point it doen't matter. *You can lead a
horse to water but you can't make him drink.* From everyting you are saying
I have to conclude that you truly haven't understood 10% of what I've shared
with you. That's only your loss.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2191
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************