Re: photos in the directory
David Herron <david@twg.com> Wed, 19 August 1992 00:35 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12741;
18 Aug 92 20:35 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12737;
18 Aug 92 20:35 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01032;
18 Aug 92 20:36 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP
id <g.05954-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:59:10 +0100
Received: from eco.twg.com by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
id <g.18816-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:58:55 +0100
Received: from LOCAL.eco.twg.com by eco.twg.com (5.65/ECO.m-$Revision: 2.16 $)
id AA17493; Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:59:06 -0400
Message-Id: <9208182359.AA17493@eco.twg.com>
Received: from navajo.twg.com by apache.twg.com id <6721-0@apache.twg.com>;
Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:58:49 -0700
From: David Herron <david@twg.com>
Subject: Re: photos in the directory
To: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 17:00:55 PDT
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue,
18 Aug 92 14:20:39 -800.<9208182120.AA19064@net.lbl.gov>
Sensitivity: Personal
Conversion: Prohibited
Conversion-With-Loss: Prohibited
Encoding: 40 TEXT , 4 TEXT
> JPEG is the new file format used for photos in the directory. G3FAX is just > Black & White (not grey scale or color) and is being phased out. I haven't been following discussions for the photo's-in-directory discussion but the demonstration I just got from my office mate has me concerned. So I've got some possibly naiive questions... For the demonstration he had a particular picture JPEG'd and at 1024x768 pixels. To display this with xv (recent version) took >30 seconds, and the command djpeg | ppmquant 256 >/dev/null took 1.5 minutes. (And it reported 30,000+ colors in the picture) This was on a lightly loaded Sun 4/490. He wasn't sure about the gritty details, but was saying that JPEG always uses 24bits/pixel. To display on a monitor which don't do that many colors you have to quantize it down to what your monitor'll do. In my case (sun bwtwo) that's 2 colors, while his (sun cg3) it is 256 colors. But this seems weird. JPEG is a recent standard, and comes after 3 or 4 generations of other picture formats. Surely they woulda learned some lessons and defined a format which allowed for lots of options. Or maybe, since this standard came from the Motion Picture industry, their concern was more focussed on compression and high quality pictures and not on generality. Q: What options are there in storing a picture? Only in 24? Other resolutions? Obviously times-to-display of 30 seconds to 1.5 minutes (This does not include any time involved with fetching through The Directory, since the picture was already on local disk) is an unacceptibly long amount of time for the user to wait to see the picture. So I am concerned, suddenly, about whether this was a good choice of picture format. Q: What purpose is the photo stuff to serve? Is it to store a persons picture along with their Directory Entry? Or is it to be for storage of pictures in general, not necessarily of people? The picture we were using wasn't (erm) of the type that you'd want as your personal picture in The Directory, so does the sort of picture & number of colors chosen &c make a difference to how long it takes to display? <- David Herron <david@twg.com> (work) <david@davids.mmdf.com> (home) <- <- "Just because I recreate the middle ages on weekends doesn't mean I have to <- at work." -- me
- RE: photos in the directory Russ Wright
- Re: photos in the directory David Herron
- Re: photos in the directory Russ Wright