Re: 3D SPEX/neotek flamed

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all, just back from vacation and will take a couple of days
before I land on my feet and get back in the swing of things.

In the meantime, while catching up with the posts on P3D, I want
to make a comment or two into the very interesting debate about
neotek and jps standards. I have alot of questions and opinions
on the whole matter but have only time to inquire to a few for now.

Regarding Neotek's abhoration with lossy systems, such as jpg/jps,
I find that interesting, since, if I understand correctly, DVD uses
a lossy format also. If that is the case, why has Neotek seen fit
to still persue the DVD system?

John replies to Larry,
>What is your problem with me, Larry?  I make a simple statement: "Don't
>use lossy compression", then you go on a tirade and then finally say to use
>PNG because it offers no-loss compression, which is exactly what I suggested.
>Are you just trying to pick a fight?  If so, don't worry about "beating"
>NEO, I have explicity stated 2 times thus far that I am not proposing, nor
>is it available, as a public stereo standard.

I think you missed Larry's point, which was if your so concerned about 
lossy systems, you could use PNG and still keep it an open system.
Best of both worlds!?

Regarding Cardboarding, John replies,
>I can do some simple, back-of-the-envolope, math that demonstrates that
>foveal resolution far exceeds (almost 2 orders of magnitude) JPEG resolutions
>for anything 50% compressing a 1 pixel vertical edge of a 640x480 pixel
>image displayed on a 17" monitor at 30" viewing distance.  It's basic
>trig plus the knowledge that a 50% compression on a vertical 1:5 pixel lined
>image results in a 3 pixel (2.6 mean extension rounded to 2) line.  A good
>test case if one wants to actually quantify things.  Given this awful loss
>off parallax information, you get considerable cardboarding.  Stereo-base
>width can also certainly effect things, but that is basically competant
>photograpahy.  I take that for granted, although I do appreciate the
>tremendous skill that it takes.  If anyone doubts my logic, a simple
>experiment would be to display an image that you believe has no cardboarding.
>Increase the lossy compression and see if such a thing appears.  Let us know
>your results.

Jpg compressions works very well for me and most others. Your math seems to
be correct but your missing one other important factor, color depth. So
the cardboarding wouldn't be as bad as the numbers suggest.

John writes:
>Well, it seems to me that if you promote JPS/JPG as a "standard", then you
>are promoting it as useful for trading or archiving.  If you have to always
>send along a TIF, BMP or some other non-lossy image for any future editing
>or re-registration, then what is the purpose, casual Web browsing only?
>I prefer a format that allows me to re-register, edit, window, archive,
>trade, post, etc. without needing some hidden "original" that actually
>retains quality.

In most cases, the images created for display to others, are for viewing
only. Similiar analogy occurs in most all other forms of media. A master
copy isn't supplied with movie video tapes, to do further "editing" of 
source materail. So sending a larger non-lossy image is not an issue. In
most cases I do my editing in bmp, then convert the final image to jpg.
If I think I will be doing any more re-editing, I keep the original. If
not, I erase it, to save space. This is still a very important
consideration (storage space), even in DVD. 

Larry:
>>That's not a decision for image quality, that's a dumb marketing
>>mistake. You ingored 80% of the full marketing picture and made a bad
>>decision. That's all that such a thing represents. It's kind of like MS
>>missing out on the internet idea till later when someone proves it was more
>>than what they had thought ...
John:
>First, I think that by definition it _is_ a decision for image quality.
>Second, our "dumb" marketing mistake has made us a few dollars in a very
>stable educational market, with a future that we have reason to be optimistic
>about.  I don't want to name names, but I suspect a few of the companies
>you admire for their marketing prowress and paying attention to the hobbyist
>market are either dead, or had recent large layoffs (for which Neotek is truly
>sad as they are not competing in our market, but do develop enthusiasm for
>stereoscopy to the benefit of us all).  Please provide an example of a
>stereoscopy company whose marketing plan you admire.  And I am sure that
>Bill Gates would like to hear if you are available to help save his
>company from all of their horrible marketing mistakes as well, especially
>their Internet problem that you mention.

Your pretty fond of quoting Bill Gates. Problem is Bill's success is owed
mostly to an open system, IBM PC, rather than to a closed system such as
Macintosh was. 

>>*****  No one said anything about dumbing down image quality either. The
>>intent of JPS was for internet exchange of stereo images since that's likely
>>to be the number one mode of access in the forseeable future.
>
>The Internet is likely to be the the number one mode for the exchange of 
>images?  That will be news to all the people that actually consider CD
>to be the only viable commercial way to distribute high-quality electronic
>imagery.  For example, the education market.  Tell Kodak you'd like to
>retrieve your PhotoCD over the net next time you drop off a roll of film.
>The net will eventually catch up to the bandwidths necessary to support the
>sizes of data you see on CD.  Of coures by then, everyone will be creating
>high-res video on DVD (we already are), so the Net will be hopelessly slow
>for that.  The Net is bound to be one step behind whatever storage media
>is on a desk top machine for some time to come.  We choose to aim at that
>higher level.  You are satisfied viewing images that are Web'able in size.
>To each his own, just don't confuse the capability of the two.

I am rather confused here, on one hand your purporting to be courting only
commercial markets and in the same breath mention state, that any other
system is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. As you mention, the
commerical and hobbyist markets are very different. This being the case,
lossy compression, page-flipping, sych-doubling, etc. are mute points,
since, we are addressing very different markets. Assuming the Neotek is
using superiour imaging technology, so what? Hasn't this been the case for
every other marketable product targetted to consumers and professionals?
Just because there is a cheaper product available for consumers doesn't
make it an inferior product. There are other concerns for the professional
market that are not required otherwise. There are lots of examples such
as home recording vs. studio recording, video taping, photography, and
the list goes on. Does this mean there is only ONE correct way of doing
things. Of course not, so why is 3D imagery that much different.

As for Kodak the tongue in cheek statement of Kodak sending ones PhotoCD
over the net, this is misleading, since PhotoCD was developed specifically
for distrubition on CD! It's not called PhotoCD for nothing, otherwise
it would have been called PhotoNET. I for one, distrubutes images over
the net rather than on CD, thus forced to use lossy systems. Most consumer
digital cameras also use lossy technology. Lossy technology has negligable
effect on 3D images. I would wager that most people will NOT see a difference
with a JPG and BMP or whatever other uncompresssed 3D image.  

John writes:
>We consider our format a valuable asset that took considerable time and money
>to develop.  We put a lot of programmer hours, customer feedback and painful
>rewriting into developing our format so that our paying customers can get
>better performance, capability and convenience than what is available
>publically.  So, why exactly should we release it so that people like you,
>who believe that JPS is superior (or at least a great idea), can particpate
>in future development and extension?  If you were one of our customers who
>had in essence paid for the development of such a system, would you feel
>that is equitable?  And in general, do you believe that anyone that invests
>in devloping a superior algorithm or technology should release it to the
>public for free?

Yet in the same post you mention that,
>It would allow us to sell our software (a high profit item) without
>hardware (much lower profit). 

Gabriel


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2262
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************