Re: 3D SPEX/neotek flamed

[P3D John Ohrt <johrt@xxxxxxx>]

This John has nothing to do with "NEO" and never has.  However, I have been
involved in remote sensing and imaging for some time, some times as the customer,
sometimes as the manufacturer.  Gabriel has raised some questions on points which
are not always well understood, maybe not even by me.  This is not a "flame" of
anyone, especially not of Gabriel.

P3D Gabriel Jacob wrote:

> 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?

First point.  I have pointed this out a few times.  JPEG and hence JPS is not
necessarily a lossy format.  It is most often used as a lossy format.

DVD is just another storage medium, and any file type is usable.  The advantage of
DVD is more storage per media, long archival life, random access, and low cost,
both initial and for media.

> 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!?

In some circumstances, a proprietary file system is better.  Like no one can
change the spec and force you to change your code.  OTH as technology changes, you
don't have to wait for everyone else to catch up.  Their is no harm in a
proprietary file system if a conversion utility is provided to convert a open
standard to the proprietary one.  I am very leery of one that doesn't provide for
conversion.

> 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.

A business exists to make money.  In many areas there is competition, and a good
marketing plan and a good staff of marketing personnel is necessary to make sure
that products developed can be sold for a profit.  Microsoft (among many others)
is good at marketing.

It is the consumers responsibility to select the appropriate product......sigh



> Does this mean there is only ONE correct way of doing
> things. Of course not, so why is 3D imagery that much different.

It is not unusual for several discernible markets in the same generic
application/technique.  Some of these markets are differentiated by
quality/price.  What we have many times experienced is a more rapid flow down of
the previous professional level quality into the hobbyists price range.

Thus it is wise to know what the pro's are using and the philosophy behind the
approach.  You are likely to see one of these approaches migrate into the hobbyist
realm.  It may be the "NEO" approach.



>  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.

First a minor note:  PhotoCD is a lossy format.  The file size is large because
the smallest image it describes is 3072x2048x16M.

You have pin pointed the key issue.  Most people will live with snapshot quality.
I do, but only when taking snapshots!  Even then, the snapshots are of higher
quality that those of the general public.  When more discerning viewing is done,
the artifacts of lossy compression algorithms are quite noticeable, even at
resolutions of 3072x2048x16M.

Let's be honest.  Most hobbyists are severely constrained by their funds
available.  I am. That fact is unlikely to change soon.  However, we can look
around as a group for things like cameras well suited or adaptable to 3D.  For
example, inexpensive digital cameras that can provide loss less data and/or higher
resolutions.

Lets bear in mind that 3072x2048x16M with a good lossy compression algorithm was
selected by Kodak as good enough for the discerning amateur.  My local service
bureau can scan at 6400 dpi!  If you hope to challenge something like a Realist
system, then you will need the resolution of such a system.

There is a market for lower capability which many are enjoying right now.  I envy
you all.  But what ever they say in the ads, it is at best snapshot quality.  You
simply won't believe what scientific image processing can do with high resolution
data.  But that capability, is almost on the desktop of home systems running Win95
or MacOS.

Regards,


--

John Ohrt * Toronto * ON * Canada





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