| From: | Matt Sealey |
| Date: | 18 Apr 2001 at 21:08:15 |
| Subject: | Re: Voyager Image Decoders |
Hello Andy
On 18-Apr-01, you wrote:
> Hello Matt
>
> On 18-Apr-01, you wrote:
>
>> Which are all ways of spreading pixels in defined patterns (either
>> using crosshatching, different sized blobs, or error values) to give
>> the imression of colours you don't have.
>
> It does help if it gives you the impression of the right colour.
>
>> Isn't that what I said? Voyager's FS algorithm is top-notch for
>> quality images.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Yeah right! Whatever you say.
I've proved it in practical tests. Wanna look at that URL again?
http://www.niblet.co.uk/bunny.png
"Number of speccy, pixellated, scrambled points on an image" is not
normally a gauge of dithering quality. The fact that you could not
tell that it was dithered beyond the original image IS.
Look at the soft shadow to the right of the rabbit, and the specular
highlight on the left of the Boingball. The definition of the ruffle is
much better in V too.
It's just better. Scientific proof.
>>>> It is NOT placing pixels in a fuzzy mess so that if you squint then it
>>>> MIGHT be that colour if you wished and wished, or looks like good
>>>> dithering on a 14" TV screen.
>>
>> ^^ which is what IBrowse does. Or seemingly so ;)
>
> Well you would say that wouldn't you?
Yes, and I would prove it too. And I did.
Go on. Give me solid, noticable proof of somewhere that Voyager has
lacklustre dithering in the same situations as IBrowse. I bet you can't
do it.
> need to slag off a rival just because your insecure about them. You don't
> get anyone on this list who work (or is that now worked?) on Ibrowse coming
> on here and listing everything that Voyager does badly, do you?
No, because compared to IBrowse, Voyager isn't that bad at all. I come here
and slag IBrowse off because IBrowse is a truly lacklustre browser. Not
because I'm "scared" or "insecure" about IBrowse.
It's image dithering is awful. It's networking is slow. Layout is abysmal on
many standard HTML constructs (Voyager may be screwing lists up totally
atm, but at least it doesn't have SUBTLE screwup bugs :) and it crashes like
a beast when Javascript is enabled - and also doesn't support half as much
Javascript as you all think it does. In fact, in all reality Voyager just about
nukes it in that department as of this week..
So, if you can sit there and tell me IBrowse is better, citing real proof and
nice explanations, and all kinds of essay-class writing on WHY it's better,
HOW it's better, and what makes it a better buy than Voyager, then go
ahead.
I've put Voyager through it's paces through many HTML testsuites and
Javascript sites, coding things to expose bugs in objects and methods of
Javascript. I've put IBrowse through those same tests. The conclusion:
IBrowse sucks. Voyager doesn't. And when Voyager sucks, Olli looks at
it and fixes it.
Thanks
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2cW4jC/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/d8AVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/