thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (08/31/89)
For anyone getting the Neptune pictures via FTP from Stanford per the posting in sci.astro, please note the pictures ARE directly viewable on the Amiga using DigiView 3.0. What you do is bring up DV in hi-res, then click on the vertical selection until it shows 480. The pictures are 640x480x8; each frame is 307,200 bytes uncompressed. If you aren't already aware of how to get the pictures, the FTP IP address is 36.51.0.8, alias mazama.stanford.edu. See the enclosed for more details. The pictures are NO LONGER ON HANAUMA due to the severe FTP overload; they've all been moved to MAZAMA for the time being. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ] ------------------------------ $ ftp mazama.stanford.edu Connected to mazama.stanford.edu. ...... ftp> dir pub/neptune/* 200 PORT command successful. 150 Opening data connection for /bin/ls (xx.yyy.zzz.7,1747) (0 bytes). -r--r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 1114331 Aug 28 16:50 pub/neptune/7best.Z -r--r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 1210 Aug 28 16:50 pub/neptune/README -r--r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 2542 Aug 28 16:50 pub/neptune/README2 -r--r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 178711 Aug 28 16:50 pub/neptune/clouds.Z -r--r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 48446 Aug 28 16:50 pub/neptune/triton.Z -r--r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 26957 Aug 28 16:50 pub/neptune/whole.Z 226 Transfer complete. 445 bytes received in 0.08 seconds (5.45 Kbytes/sec) ftp> get pub/neptune/7best.Z 7best.Z 200 PORT command successful. 150 Opening data connection for pub/neptune/7best.Z (xx.yyy.zzz.7,1748) (111433 1 bytes). 226 Transfer complete. 1114331 bytes received in 32.12 seconds (33.88 Kbytes/sec)
portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (08/31/89)
In article <3511@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> doug@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (douglas.sulpy) writes: In article <21728@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > For anyone getting the Neptune pictures via FTP from Stanford.... ---- Would someone please get these to Bob Page, and the binaries newsgroup? Not a good idea. Each picture is 307200 bytes long uncompressed, and there are ten of them. Compressed, you're still looking at somewhere around 1.5 meg, and that's before uuencoding them (which will increase their size). The pictures are 640x480x8 bitplanes (mono). If somebody were to convert these files to 640x480x4 IFF, they might be made small enough to post. Greyscale bandwidth would be lost in the process, though. --M -- __ \/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. portuesi@SGI.COM "$16,000! And all he wanted to do was dip us in plaster!"
doug@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (douglas.sulpy) (09/01/89)
In article <21728@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > For anyone getting the Neptune pictures via FTP from Stanford.... ---- Would someone please get these to Bob Page, and the binaries newsgroup?
murphy@pur-phy (William J. Murphy) (09/01/89)
Thad, you mentioned using Digi-View 3.0 to bring up the Voyager pics, for those who don't have DV3, has anyone put together the pics into an IFF HAM or H-Res image? Although HAM will sacrifice some resolution, it will allow more gray scale approximations. Bill Murphy
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (09/01/89)
In article <21728@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >For anyone getting the Neptune pictures via FTP from Stanford per the posting >in sci.astro, please note the pictures ARE directly viewable on the Amiga using >is 36.51.0.8, alias mazama.stanford.edu. See the enclosed for more details. > >The pictures are NO LONGER ON HANAUMA due to the severe FTP overload; they've >all been moved to MAZAMA for the time being. > >Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ] > Is there any chance of seeing these in c.binaries.amiga ? I would love to see them but do not have ftp access. It seems to me that the net load would not be that great since the over-whelming amount of ftp requests that are flooding the ftp sites already. Hope someone can help Monty Saine
denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) (09/02/89)
In article <464@sagpd1.UUCP> monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: > > Is there any chance of seeing these in c.binaries.amiga ? I would love to >see them but do not have ftp access. It seems to me that the net load would >not be that great since the over-whelming amount of ftp requests that are >flooding the ftp sites already. > > Hope someone can help > Monty Saine Sorry, you're not talking about the same thing. The FTP access is being done through fast packet switch networks. comp.binaries.amiga is distributed largely by slow dialup lines. If compression followed by uuencoding is a wash, then we're talking about a megabyte and a half, which would have to be distributed by 9600 baud (or 2400 baud!) modems. This would take at least 4.5 hours per hop at 9600 baud. The last time anyone did something like this, we got disconnected from a bunch of sites. Let's not repeat the mistake, shall we? Steven C. Den Beste || denbeste@bbn.com (ARPA/CSNET) BBN Communications Corp. || {apple, usc, husc6, csd4.milw.wisc.edu, 150 Cambridge Park Dr. || gatech, oliveb, mit-eddie, Cambridge, MA 02140 || ulowell}!bbn.com!denbeste (USENET)
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (09/02/89)
Some more tips re: processing the Stanford version of the Voyager pictures. The original NASA pictures are 800x800x8 per frame. The ones snarfed by the people at Stanford from the NASA-JPL cable link are 640x480x8 (307,200 bytes). DigiView (version 3.0) stores its "raw" RGB digitizations in 8 bitplanes for each color. A full RGB picture therefore has 24 bit planes' data. This is NOT anything akin to the Amiga IFF format. These two facts (above) can be put to good use with the Stanford pictures! By treating the Stanford pictures as either: 1) 640x480x8 greyscale monoschrome, or 2) the RED 640x480x8 bitplanes of a "raw" DigiView RGB picture one can then easily view and manipulate the pictures directly. For treatment (1) above, start DigiView (v 3.0), select INTERLACE ON, HIRES ON, VERT OVERSCAN ON, HORIZ OVERSCAN OFF, COLOR OFF. Be sure the Width=640 and the Height=480, then click on "OK". Bypass the requester stating No Video Signal Present, then load your pictures using the LOAD menu from the DigiView main pulldown menu. For treatment (2) above, start DigiView (v 3.0), select INTERLACE ON, HIRES ON, VERT OVERSCAN ON, HORIZ OVERSCAN OFF, COLOR ON. Be sure the Width=640 and the Height=480, then click on "OK". Bypass the requester stating No Video Signal Present, then load your pictures using the LOAD menu from the DigiView main pulldown menu. I've found that treatment (2) is best, but you have to endure the initial SLOW startup of your picture in the RED mode. After it's displayed, select the COLOR menu, then push the slider for RED all the way up, and the sliders for GREEN and BLUE all the way down (since there aren't any green or blue bitplanes ) and select DISPLAY to (this time) get a very nice greyscale image in which all the picture annotations are readable! You cannot play with the bitplanes if you initially started DigiView in the monochrome mode. After adjusting brightness, contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. to your liking, you can either save the picture as (vastly reduced resolution) IFF 4-bitplanes, or you can print it. The pictures come out great this way using an Xerox 4020, and we're going to be experimenting (at HT Electronics) with a Seiko and a Calcomp printer this weekend. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
jms@opus.uucp (Joe Smith) (09/03/89)
In article <2497@pur-phy> murphy@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (William J. Murphy) writes: >Thad, you mentioned using Digi-View 3.0 to bring up the Voyager pics, >for those who don't have DV3, has anyone put together the pics into an >IFF HAM or H-Res image? Although HAM will sacrifice some resolution, >it will allow more gray scale approximations. Even though the pictures are store using on byte per pixel, every other nibble is zero. Only 16 out of the possible 256 levels are used. Therefore no detail is lost when they are converted to a 640x480x4-bit-plane IFF hi-res picture. The end result is not HAM format. (Thad has posted a follow-up with further details.) However, not many display programs handle that much vertical overscan. Most truncate the image at 420 or 440 lines. Dpaint3 reads the image in OK, but you have to use the arrow keys to see the top and bottom. So far, I have only found 2 programs that display all 480 lines properly: DigiView 3.0 and ShoWiz 2.0. I don't have a copy of Ushow to try. One other warning: Fred Fish put a note on the version of uncompress in his library that states that uncompress sometimes fails to uncompress large files. Symptoms are: 1) infinite loop writing garbage to the disk, 2) trashed free-list (AVAIL reports 29megabytes of memory free), or 3) all floppy drive select lights go on and the Amiga hangs. I am having problems with spots, tritonwhole, and twocresc. Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | jms@antares.Tymnet.COM or jms@tymix.Tymnet.COM McDonnell Douglas FSCO | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!antares!jms PO Box 49019, MS-D21 | PDP-10:JMS@F74.Tymnet.COM CA license plate:"POPJ P," San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!"
portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (09/05/89)
In article <2497@pur-phy> murphy@pur-phy (William J. Murphy) writes:
Although HAM will sacrifice some resolution,
it will allow more gray scale approximations.
No, it won't. The Amiga has four bits of color resolution each for R,
G and B. It is limited to sixteen greyscales no matter what display
mode you choose. They can all be displayed in a high-res image.
--M
--
__
\/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc.
portuesi@SGI.COM
"$16,000! And all he wanted to do was dip us in plaster!"olsen@hpfcdq.HP.COM (John Olsen) (09/06/89)
portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes: >In article <2497@pur-phy> murphy@pur-phy (William J. Murphy) writes: > > Although HAM will sacrifice some resolution, > > it will allow more gray scale approximations. >No, it won't. The Amiga has four bits of color resolution each for R, >G and B. It is limited to sixteen greyscales no matter what display >mode you choose. They can all be displayed in a high-res image. Sorry, but you missed the word "approximations". For example: R G B 8 8 8 Medium gray 8 8 7 \ 8 7 8 \ Approximately gray, and all between the 888 and 777. The 7 8 8 \ intensities may be very close, so you might want to only use 8 7 7 / two of the intermediate shades (one with a single 7 and one with 7 8 7 / two sevens), but that still gives you 46 shades of near-gray 7 7 8 / (two between each adjacent pair of true grays -> 30 extra colors). 7 7 7 Next true gray down I've used this technique with good results, and I've spotted some of those near-grays in some digitized images by looking really close. If you use dithering with it, you can make really nice images. Now dithering in HAM is not exactly straightforward, and opens up a whole new can of worms which I don't want to worry about now. :^) I hope this helped a little. John M. Olsen, Graphics Software Engineer olsen@hpfcdq.HP.COM -or- ...!hplabs!hpfcdq!olsen (W) Hewlett-Packard, Mail Stop 73, 3404 E. Harmony Road, Ft Collins, CO 80525 (H) 700 E. Drake Rd. #E12, Ft Collins, CO 80525
rickfor@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Rick Forrest) (09/06/89)
In article <PORTUESI.89Sep5102058@tweezers.esd.sgi.com> portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes: >In article <2497@pur-phy> murphy@pur-phy (William J. Murphy) writes: > > it will allow more gray scale approximations. > > >G and B. It is limited to sixteen greyscales no matter what display >mode you choose. They can all be displayed in a high-res image. >\/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. Uh, i've heard it said before here on the net (don't know if it was confirmed or not) that a HAM pic displayed thru the monochrome video out on the 500/2000 gave you more shades of gray. For what it's worth. F O D D E R Rick Forrest.
murphy@pur-phy (William J. Murphy) (09/07/89)
In article <PORTUESI.89Sep5102058@tweezers.esd.sgi.com> portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes: >In article <2497@pur-phy> murphy@pur-phy (William J. Murphy) writes: > > Although HAM will sacrifice some resolution, > it will allow more gray scale approximations. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >No, it won't. The Amiga has four bits of color resolution each for R, >G and B. It is limited to sixteen greyscales no matter what display >mode you choose. They can all be displayed in a high-res image. >\/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. > portuesi@SGI.COM I tried to e-mail respond, but it bounced. Miachael please read what is written. I did not say more gray scale, but gray scale approximations. What I mean by this is that each true gray R=G=B may be adjusted +- 1 bit in either R G or B which approximates gray while not yielding a true gray. I should have been more explicit. Bill Murphy
donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White) (09/09/89)
In article <PORTUESI.89Sep5102058@tweezers.esd.sgi.com> portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes: >In article <2497@pur-phy> murphy@pur-phy (William J. Murphy) writes: > Although HAM will sacrifice some resolution, > it will allow more gray scale approximations. >No, it won't. The Amiga has four bits of color resolution each for R, Yes, it will. (in a way). It will only display 16 PERFECTLY BALANCED greys. But, (and this is a big but), the human perception recognizes lots of almost greys as grey. When a source picture has more grey levels than the amiga, off greys are an acceptable substitute for MORE greys. Of course the purists will complain that information is being added. But, for the most part, this isn't true. The grey tone may be wrong, but the fact that a different grey tone should be there is preserved. (Sort of a non-euclidean value for the amount of data maintained.) (Just a leetle fractal joke. Yuk Yuk. ) Don White PO Box 271177 Concord, CA. 94527-1177 zehntel!donw
poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (09/14/89)
In article <3511@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> doug@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (douglas.sulpy) writes: >In article <21728@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >> For anyone getting the Neptune pictures via FTP from Stanford.... > >Would someone please get these to Bob Page, and the binaries newsgroup? I'm sorry to have to say this, but I believe the unwritten Usenet consensus is that image files are not to be posted. I love images, but their marginal utility can't justify their size. The net would be swamped. Cheers, Charles Poirier
poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (09/16/89)
In article <464@sagpd1.UUCP> monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: >In article <21728@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >>is 36.51.0.8, alias mazama.stanford.edu. See the enclosed for more details. > > Is there any chance of seeing these in c.binaries.amiga ? I would love to >see them but do not have ftp access. It seems to me that the net load would >not be that great since the over-whelming amount of ftp requests that are >flooding the ftp sites already. It is regrettable that many people don't have ftp access. But there is no way that usenet can support even a fraction of the bandwidth that general image distribution would require. It may be true that some ftp sites get overloaded; but they at least have local control of what and how much people can ftp. For usenet broadcast, each and every site gets hit. It would take one heck of a lot (I think) of ftp'ing to equal the total cost to usenet of general distribution. I say we should not open the door at this time. If people get the idea that images of anything can be posted, things could get ugly. Well I'm no net-god, but this is my opinion. Cheers, Charles Poirier
donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White) (09/19/89)
In article <1205@xyzzy.UUCP> poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) writes: >In article <464@sagpd1.UUCP> monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: >>In article <21728@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >>>is 36.51.0.8, alias mazama.stanford.edu. See the enclosed for more details. >> >> Is there any chance of seeing these in c.binaries.amiga ? I would love to > >It is regrettable that many people don't have ftp access. But there is > Charles Poirier Wouldn't it make sense to have an comp.sys.amiga.pix group? Those that don't want to have to support the bandwidth can unsubscribe. Those that want a place to share their graphics COULD? I agree it would be wrong to use comp.sys.amiga or sources or binaries or tech for distributing picture files on a wholesale basis. But this is a fairly versatile medium. We should be able to come up with a way to allow the CHOICE. Don White Box 271177 Concord, CA. 94527-1177 zehntel!donw
armhold@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) (09/20/89)
In article <1469@zehntel.UUCP> donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White) writes: > > Wouldn't it make sense to have an comp.sys.amiga.pix group? Those that > don't want to have to support the bandwidth can unsubscribe. Those that > want a place to share their graphics COULD? > > I agree it would be wrong to use comp.sys.amiga or sources or binaries or > tech for distributing picture files on a wholesale basis. But this is a fairly > versatile medium. We should be able to come up with a way to allow the CHOICE. I think this is a great idea! But would it be abusive of Usenet to post such large files on a regular basis? -George
fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) (09/20/89)
From article <1469@zehntel.UUCP>, by donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White): > Wouldn't it make sense to have an comp.sys.amiga.pix group? Those that > don't want to have to support the bandwidth can unsubscribe. Those that > want a place to share their graphics COULD? Trouble is, even if you unsubscribe the newsgroup takes up disk space on the machine. Even if nobody on your machine subscribes the newsgroup takes up space if your machine feeds news to another. And images require lots of space for their representation. --Fabbian Dufoe 350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 813-823-2350 UUCP: ...uunet!pdn!jc3b21!fgd3
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (09/21/89)
In article <1469@zehntel.UUCP> donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White) writes:
Wouldn't it make sense to have an comp.sys.amiga.pix group? Those that
don't want to have to support the bandwidth can unsubscribe. Those that
want a place to share their graphics COULD?
Don White
Box 271177 Concord, CA. 94527-1177
zehntel!donw
I don't think the point is to avoid READERS from having to deal with
"bandwidth" problems. If there is such a newsgroup, and if sites
allow readers to subscribe to it, then megabytes of such pictures
would have to be sent between sites, costing LOTS of money. It's not
a question of readers unsubscribing, but of whole sites unsubscribing.
I personally wouldn't want to spend uncounted $$$ just on one
newsgroup alone...
If you don't have ftp access, just find a friend who does who is
willing to email to you. That would be far less expensive for
everyone.
--
T. Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.{edu|cdn}
kim@watsup.uwaterloo.ca
{uunet|utzoo|utai|decvax}watmath!watsup!kim
Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
--
T. Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.{edu|cdn}
kim@watsup.uwaterloo.ca
{uunet|utzoo|utai|decvax}watmath!watsup!kim
Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canadadca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) (09/21/89)
In article <1469@zehntel.UUCP>, donw@zehntel.zehntel.com (Don White) writes: >Wouldn't it make sense to have an comp.sys.amiga.pix group? Those that >don't want to have to support the bandwidth can unsubscribe. Those that >want a place to share their graphics COULD? > >I agree it would be wrong to use comp.sys.amiga or sources or binaries or >tech for distributing picture files on a wholesale basis. But this is a fairly >versatile medium. We should be able to come up with a way to allow the CHOICE > No I don't think it would make sense to have a comp.sys.amiga.pix group. All other groups under comp.sys that I know of are for interchange of textual information about the specific machines of interest. Anything hiding under comp.sys.amiga should be subdivisions of the textual info not something of a binary nature. If pictures were to be distributed they should certainly be placed at the comp. level (as in binaries & source) so that it is easy to omit from reception by the adminstator and is then also expandable to other machine types without having to require further administrator intervention. I like pictures too, but I wouldn't want to pay for retransmission of information of such large bandwidth requirements when the information also typically has a short interest lifetime. David Albrecht
armhold@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) (09/21/89)
Actually, an FTP site dedicated to Amiga pic files would be great. Or at least let's have a directory at one of the usual sites set aside for pics. -George
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (09/21/89)
Hi,
Would it be unreasonable for the server run by the source/binaries
people to have the Neptune pics? Do they have the space to hold files
of this size? At least then some of us non-ftp people could have access.
Just a thought,
Monty Saine