30 Aug
2011
30 Aug
'11
6:56 p.m.
On 08/30/2011 09:10 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
What's that got to do with it?
About as much as you're sticking the subsentence "web-oriented" in
the sentence above.
Image processing and archiving (not to mention file
preservation in
general) goes far, far beyond this handful of web-oriented formats. In
fact JFIF, PNG and GIF cannot even _represent_ many of the images that
millions of people use every day.
"Web-oriented formats"? Every one of them predates "the web" by
years. The web and digital photography helped these three
become ubiquitous.
But as soon as you get into professional image processing you often need
something more sophisticated.
Riiiiight. Like PSD for example, which is documented. Perhaps not
WELL, but it's documented. (as you know intimately from your work on
that parser)
Just curious: are the tape and wire formats for DV
video openly
documented? What about HD and professional/film formats? What if
somebody asked you to decode 100TB of video from 2011 one day...
Then I'll figure it out, and send them a big fat bill.
Look, you are being a dick. Someone asserted that digital
photography is inferior to film photography because we are almost
certainly going to lose the spec to the formats that are in common use
(which is so unlikely to as to be effectively impossible, it isn't
friggin' 1970 anymore!) and everybody knows film photography is better
because negatives last forever. (which is bull to begin with, as proven
by my big box of disintegrating 35-year-old Tri-X-Pan negatives)
THAT is what we're talking about. Not proprietary undocumented image
formats that comprise maybe 1/10 of 1% of all digital imaging done in
the world today. 99.9% of today's digital images will not be lost,
barring a complete global holocaust. Which is [drumroll please] what we
were actually talking about.
Go find something useful to do, and stop trying to provoke me into
saying you're being a dick...because I've just done so.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL