30 Aug
2011
30 Aug
'11
6:10 p.m.
On 30/08/11 8:29 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
What's that got to do with it?
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.
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...
--T
On 08/30/2011 07:51 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
Then, since nobody disagrees with you on JFIF, PNG and GIF, why is this
thread continuing?
Because you keep disagreeing.
How inconvenient!
>> no, Toby and I are speculating that technical
know-how and literacy
>> could
>> lose out to the forces of idiocy.
>
> Well...with that I cannot disagree. But, I have to think that
> JFIF,
> PNG, and GIF file specs should be able to survive
Nobody is disagreeing with you on such obvious cases.
But those are the ones we're talking about. Maybe it's because your summary of the
situation (use these three or be
deservedly screwed) is over-simple.
Yes it is, because it doesn't need to be complex. Why does it have to
be any more complicated than "don't use weird unsupportable undocumented
proprietary stuff"?
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.
-Dave