[Ilugc] [OT] Images only in Rectangle ?
- From: vvikram@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Vikram)
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:12:13 -0800 (PST)
Excuse me but please what ?
Please... the rectangular object _is_ the issue. And its _not_
UI-lameness...its the UI's simplicity.
thanks but you are confused. the fact that it is even today keep-it-simple
doesnt detract lameness , in fact you only add to the argument. think
Keeping things simple has always been the key. Contrary to intuition...a
rectangle needs only four variables i.e.,
(x_1,y_1),(x_1,y_2),(x_2,y_1),(x_2,y_2). Even a quadrilateral would need
eight variables i.e (x_i,y_i); 0<i<5; i belongs to N. 'Fractally', the
pixel is a rectangle. Its easy to build an exact huge rectangle out of
small rectangles. No matter how small the pixels, you cant build an
huh? what has this got to do what i said ? you are _emphasizing_ that
keeping it simple is the key. we [at least i] _know_ this. think about it
before flaming. the reasoning behind the original post was made was _why
the simplicity_ and you are just stressing a tautology [its simple and
hence done like this]. i dont disagree , i just think its known
[OT] When things come to windows, mouse sensitivity within a window
needs only one parameter specifying the boundary (the horizontal bound
or the vertical) when the mouse is moving in a straight line along _any_
direction...this is very simple. But think about a quadrilateral...you
would need to specify the slope _and_ an initial starting point for the
boundary line...which means...we need two parameters. More
complex...lets stay simple.
wait . stop before you give me a lesson on parametrization. i know this
stuff. so please can we just cut it out?
again, so lets make the analogy: oh why doesnt linux have scalable smp
support ? "lets keep it simple. we handle UP fine....." . i _agree_ with
your statements but thats not what i even replied for.
my pt was there are some basic problems with imaging on the screen which i
think are key problems. lets go thro' this argument again shall we:
I think you are justifying the current setup saying its simple. I am
emphasizing that `yes its simple [rectangular objects] hence lame. it can
be complex [irregular imags]. however note there are some limiting and
important points in imaging in general [analog to digital]`
now am i clear ? or do you still think that i live without knowledge of
what you say.
> the real issue is you are always interpolating a
> 2d real coordinate system [your image] to a 2d integer coordinate
> system [your screen]. the loss of precision here can be offset
> cleverly in many ways namely anti-aliasing, shading etc.
I dont see how this is relevant to the topic of rectangular images.
HUH. look , i bet you latched onto one statement and intended to flame
away. read the above statements again. i was indicating that there is this
inherent problem with
[OT] _Every_ image is sampled (digitised). Even our eye does this. There
are two issues involved here 1) the bit rate..or depth resolution, and
2) the screen resolution. The more of both...the better. There is _no_
duh me. its definitely my bad. interpolation is a wrong term. i didnt see
that i had used it and cant believe it too - oh and i think thats what set
you off like a jackrabbit ?? please read on for what i actually meant. i
am surprised that you didnt understand what i meant but instead thought
"there is no interpolation here! you are crapping!" . nice.
OT: please dont talk to me about sampling; i am spending my time daily
with DSP systems here so i would like to at least SEE something else in my
For eg., draw a one-pixel thick straight line, with a slope, in an
losslessly compressed or uncompressed format...say .png...and see the
effect of resizing this image in a browser window. This should explain
truncation. And Anti-aliasing was brought in because our eyes do a lousy
job at sampling...and because the computer monitor has a fixed screen
read your last line. if you hadnt jumped the gun you would have seen this
was exactly what i was describing.
One can never know the difference between the analog and discrete. We
always 'see' digital. The eye does a spatial sampling (a frame) and a
time sampling (movie). What we see is a movie played at approx. 30
frames per sec. So...the real problem is how to make things discrete so
that its more acceptable and pleasing for us (for eg. anti-aliasing).
so what are you trying to say ? 'the real problem is how to make things
discrete' ? which is also what i said.
when a rectagle is maintained. _Any_ image encoder exploits this.
As mentioned before, if an 'irregular' image is needed, specify the
necessary pixels to have 100% transparency (called alpha in most cases).
I dont think JPEG can do this...any decent lossless compression scheme
like PNG has transparency.
look i know what you are saying. kiss is the principle but that is
tangential to the point i mentioned which was its limited by an
analog-digital transformation. [you can argue that what i said was a
tautology too] . i dont see how what you said in anyway contradicts
what i said.
BUT let me guess, it felt nice to flame knowledgably ? imho, i think you
could have said it in superposition with what i said. your wish though.
thanks anyways for the post.
Other related posts: