turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) (04/27/91)
Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought about unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are interesting. I propose the establish the newsgroup: comp.graphics.research to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature. Certainly there must be other people who are interested in state-of-the-art developments in computer graphics, aren't there? Please post your interest to this newsgroup, so that we might all get a feel for the number of doers vs. users out there. -- Ken Turkowski @ Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA Internet: turk@apple.com Applelink: TURK UUCP: sun!apple!turk
clipper@csd.uwo.ca (Khun Yee Fung) (04/27/91)
>>>>> On 26 Apr 91 22:20:29 GMT, turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) said:
Ken> Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have
Ken> thought about unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the
Ken> articles are interesting.
Ken> I propose the establish the newsgroup:
Ken> comp.graphics.research
Ken> to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research
Ken> nature.
I like this idea too. Too many requests in comp.graphics for packages,
bitmap formats etc. May be comp.graphics.request should be established
too. Then, we will have comp.graphics for general discussion,
comp.graphics.request for requests of packages etc, and
comp.graphics.research for technical discussions. But I don't know
whether there will be enough traffic for the research group though.
May be just comp.graphics and comp.graphics.request. I don't know,
just want to separate the requests from the discussions.
Khun Yee
--
Name: Khun Yee Fung Email: clipper@csd.uwo.ca
Paper mail: Department of Computer Science, Middlesex College
The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7 CANADAxanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/27/91)
turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: > Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought > about unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are > interesting. I long ago did; I found I was writing higher level stuff than I was reading. > I propose the establish the newsgroup: > comp.graphics.research > to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research > nature. Sigh. It would be nice. > Certainly there must be other people who are interested in > state-of-the-art developments in computer graphics, aren't there? Yes. > Please post your interest to this newsgroup, so that we might all get > a feel for the number of doers vs. users out there. If it isn't moderated, it's a waste of time creating the group; it will still be mostly postings from kids wanting help with their homework. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
hollasch@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Steve Hollasch) (04/27/91)
turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes:
( Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought about
( unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are interesting.
(
( I propose the establish the newsgroup:
(
( comp.graphics.research
(
( to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature.
(
( Certainly there must be other people who are interested in state-of-the-art
( developments in computer graphics, aren't there?
(
( Please post your interest to this newsgroup, so that we might all
( get a feel for the number of doers vs. users out there.
This discussion seems to come up about once a year, but has always
fizzled out for some reason. Personally, I think it's a great idea.
However, you say that you don't find any of the articles in comp.graphics
interesting. I hope you're exaggerating, because you don't create
"interesting" articles by creating a new newsgroup for them. You really
need to have the articles and interest already present, then you create
the new newsgroup to divert the traffic for better categorization of
topics.
What usually happens with this discussion is that someone tosses up
the idea of an algorithms-oriented newsgroup (in your case,
"comp.graphics.research", in the past "comp.graphics.theory", also
suggested "comp.graphics.algorithms"). Then someone suggests that we
create a separate newsgroup for the disussion of graphics formats. Then
someone suggests that we create "comp.graphics.ibm", then
"comp.graphics.art", then ...
The main plea of this response is to curb any tendency to propose a
conglomeration of seventeen comp.graphics subgroups and subsequently
quash interest because of the newfound complexity.
This idea has been proposed to death. It's a good idea. Let's PLEASE
discuss this _one_ newsgroup and put it up to a vote. If we also need
comp.graphics.formats & friends, we can also discuss this -- IN THE
FUTURE.
______________________________________________________________________________
Steve Hollasch / Arizona State University (Tempe, Arizona)
hollasch@enuxha.eas.asu.edu / uunet!mimsy!oddjob!noao!asuvax!enuxha!hollaschdavid@mks.com (David Rowley) (04/27/91)
In article <13207@goofy.Apple.COM> turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: >Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought about >unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are interesting. > >I propose the establish the newsgroup: > > comp.graphics.research > >to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature. > >Certainly there must be other people who are interested in state-of-the-art >developments in computer graphics, aren't there? > >Please post your interest to this newsgroup, so that we might all >get a feel for the number of doers vs. users out there. >-- Even as a 'user' I'd like to see this happen. One of the reasons I subscribed to comp.graphics was because of the high quality of postings on current work in the field. Over the last year or so it has degraded into discussions on file formats and public domain raytracers -- both noble pursuits, but not generally interesting. I'd like to see a moderated newsgroup, of the same sort of quality as the Ray Tracing News by Eric Haines. A moderated group though would give better turnaround time and (hopefully) generate more interesting discussion. I'm all for it -- Just as rec.humor.funny was born, perhaps it's time for comp.graphics.interesting, or comp.graphics.signal and comp.graphics.noise. Seriously, though, comp.graphics.research isn't a bad name. What do you think ? Moderated or not ? -- ll // // ,~/~~\' David Rowley /ll/// //l' `\\\ Mortice Kern Systems Inc. / l //_// ll\___/ 35 King Street North, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2J 2W9 O_/ 519/884-2251, FAX 519/884-8861, david@mks.com
sundar@ai.mit.edu (Sundar Narasimhan) (04/27/91)
In article <13207@goofy.Apple.COM>, turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: |> I propose the establish the newsgroup: |> comp.graphics.research |> I think this is a very good idea. It seems to me, however, that research issues of interest to the graphics community will also be of interest to others who work in computational geometry, cad/cam, solid modeling etc. IMHO, I'd like to see a group that addresses the common need of all these groups.
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) (04/28/91)
I vote for it. Moderated, as people say, charter: discussion of
computer graphics algorithms.
Who'll bell the cat? (In other words, who'll moderate it?)
____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk \ /
/\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/fournier@cs.ubc.ca (Alain Fournier) (04/28/91)
OK, I'll vote for this (it should not, however, be construed as a snub against comp.graphics, just that a more focused subgroup would help).
tuna@lcs.mit.edu (Kirk 'UhOh' Johnson) (04/28/91)
turk@apple.com writes:
Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have
thought about unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the
articles are interesting.
I propose the establish the newsgroup:
comp.graphics.research
to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research
nature.
sounds like a good idea to me; i'd vote for it.
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG adds:
If it isn't moderated, it's a waste of time creating the group; it
will still be mostly postings from kids wanting help with their
homework.
kent may have a point here. anybody who has the time interested in
moderating?
kirk
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
kirk johnson `Eat blue dogs
tuna@lcs.mit.edu and dig life.'burton@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Jamez de Coilier) (04/28/91)
In <1991Apr27.043254.16155@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, I could have sworn xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) managed to say: > > turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: > >> Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought >> about unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are >> interesting. > >I long ago did; I found I was writing higher level stuff than I was reading. > >> I propose the establish the newsgroup: > >> comp.graphics.research > >> to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research >> nature. > >Sigh. It would be nice. > >> Certainly there must be other people who are interested in >> state-of-the-art developments in computer graphics, aren't there? > I'm sure there are plenty.But what is contained in 'Computer Graphics' and what is not.Some of the most interesting work goes into ares that border on not being considered CG. I'm thinking about hypertext/hypermedia , CASE and vision processing systems. Any worries about lack of traffic for the proposed group should be allayed by the probable truth of the remark that prospective users are now put off by people asking for gif formats and the like. ( phew , that one took me 20 minutes ) >Yes. > >> Please post your interest to this newsgroup, so that we might all get >> a feel for the number of doers vs. users out there. > >If it isn't moderated, it's a waste of time creating the group; it will >still be mostly postings from kids wanting help with their homework. I can't agree with moderation, surely free form discussion is what is lacking at the moment. > >Kent, the man from xanth. ><xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> James Burton, LaTrobe University, Melbourne.
jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia) (04/28/91)
In article <13207@goofy.Apple.COM> turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: >Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought about >unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are interesting. > > comp.graphics.research >to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature. Good idea. Please, people, do not suggest any other group; we don't need any comp.graphics.pics.gif, etc. news group debate and flame war. Don't we? Of course, you can suggest to subdivide the comp.graphics news group to, say, ten new news groups - but, think about what happened last time we tryed to make several news groups instead of one: We didn't get any new newsgroups. What we should write in this new group? We do not send requests or pictures to it, at least. We do not discuss about making or installing the image processing package (gif, tiff, discussions) -- there's alt.pixutils for that and that all is 'old' stuff anyway. We do discuss about new algorithms including all computer graphics fields. Maybe we keep the level of the talkings high -- at the SIGGRAPH level at least. Unfortunately, nobody do would like to discuss about really new and future research - so, we might realize that and just talk about what is published allready. For keeping the level of the articles high, this news group should be moderated. Otherwise someone will anyway post requests to that group just because readers, *guess*, know more about CG than readers of the comp.graphics. But, there's problems in moderated news group, so, we might just selfmoderate and think about what to post and what not. If the level of the topics is reasonable high and interesting enough, there could be more professionals reading this group. Juhana Kouhia
drw900@anusf.anu.edu.au ("Drew R Whitehouse") (04/29/91)
In article <13207@goofy.Apple.COM>, turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: |> Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought about |> unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are interesting. |> |> I propose the establish the newsgroup: |> |> comp.graphics.research |> |> to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature. |> |> Certainly there must be other people who are interested in state-of-the-art |> developments in computer graphics, aren't there? |> |> Please post your interest to this newsgroup, so that we might all |> get a feel for the number of doers vs. users out there. |> -- |> Ken Turkowski @ Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA I would definitely like this, a group where you don't get posts like - How do I convert image format X into image format Y...... How do I animate gif images on my super duper VGA++ ......etc etc Drew // Drew Whitehouse, E-mail: drw900@anusf.anu.edu.au // Visualization Group, Fax : +61 (0)6 247 3425 // Australian National University, Phone : +61 (0)6 249 5985 // Supercomputer Facility. // GPO Box 4, Canberra ACT Australia 2601.
msr@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Srinivas R. Manapragada) (04/29/91)
Yes it is time to diversify the comp.graphics group. I really am tired of the number of articles asking for gif viewers, and the flaming over book reviews. comp.graphics.research GOOD IDEA, the contents of the articles must be research oriented. How about a group for those interested in 3d graphics? comp.graphics.3d Articles devoted to 3d graphics, eg. flight simulation, volume rendering etc. _Srini_
guenter@prism.gatech.EDU (Brian Guenter) (04/29/91)
I would also be interested in such a newgroup. For purposes of research comp.graphics has much too high a noise to signal ratio these days. -- Brian Guenter College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332-0280 Internet: guenter@cc.gatech.edu
mkibler@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Michael K. Kibler) (04/29/91)
Count me in. Moderated or not. I missed just one week and had to sift through 400 messages. -- ---- Mike ( ~~ Radiosity is more than just heat! ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Michael K. Kibler INTERNET: mkibler@eecs.wsu.edu Elect/Compt. Engr. Dept. UUCP : ...uunet!eecs.wsu.edu!mkibler
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) (04/29/91)
In article <30038@rouge.usl.edu> msr@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Srinivas R. Manapragada) writes: >How about a group for those interested in 3d graphics? > > comp.graphics.3d Articles devoted to 3d graphics, eg. > flight simulation, volume rendering etc. SSsssshhhhh! Let's get comp.graphics.research on the road first, then we'll worry about other groups. The subject of 3D graphics splits across both groups: from "What file format does the UglyTrace raytracer use?" to "I've just thought of a new algorithm that makes it possible to do radiosity style graphics in real time on my ZX81". ____ \/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk \ / /\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/
jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia) (04/29/91)
In article <30038@rouge.usl.edu> msr@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Srinivas R. Manapragada) writes: > >How about a group for those interested in 3d graphics? > > comp.graphics.3d Articles devoted to 3d graphics, eg. > flight simulation, volume rendering etc. Volume rendering goes in .research group well, if it's not a request or a call for participation to making your home exercises. Here it goes again... How about.. comp.graphics.4d? (For 4D animations, 4D fractals) comp.graphics.2.5d? (For 2.5 hidden surface algorithms, 2.5D fractals) :-) :-) No vote for comp.graphics.3d from me. Juhana Kouhia
whb@castle.ed.ac.uk (H Bruce) (04/29/91)
Good idea - but would it not be better to break comp.graphics into more than
one sub-group ? eg
comp.graphics.3d
comp.graphics.formats etc.
A poll would return an indication of what type of groups people wanted.
Although many groups would be suggested it shouldn't be difficult to come up
with a sensible compromise.
On a slightly different topic, main main interest is image processing.
I am pissed of with subject matter being scattered in :
comp.graphics
comp.ai.vision
comp.dsp
comp.compression
Anyone else feel the same way ?
If so any suggestions ?
Henry Bruce.gpraman@sdrc.COM (Raman Srinivasan) (04/29/91)
In article <13207@goofy.Apple.COM>, turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: > > I propose the establish the newsgroup: > > comp.graphics.research > Good idea! I'm all for it.
mam@hutcs.hut.fi (Martti M{ntyl{) (04/29/91)
I for one vote for the establishment of a research-oriented group. Martti Mantyla -- Martti Mantyla Tel. +358-0-451-3230 (office) Laboratory of Information Processing Science 692-6964 (home) Helsinki University of Technology E-mail: mam%cs.hut.fi Otakaari 1 Fax:: +358-0-451-3293
psantan@alias.uucp (Peter Santangeli) (04/29/91)
> > I propose the establish the newsgroup: > > comp.graphics.research > Please post your interest to this newsgroup, so that we might all > get a feel for the number of doers vs. users out there. Please, Please.... lets do this! Also, is there some kind soul (working for an even kinder company...) that could moderate it? Pete
jamison@boulder.ColoState.EDU (Jamie Gulden) (04/29/91)
In article <9104270206.AA17499@nomis.csd.uwo.ca> clipper@csd.uwo.ca (Khun Yee Fung) writes: >>>>>> On 26 Apr 91 22:20:29 GMT, turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) said: >Ken> Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have >Ken> thought about unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the >Ken> articles are interesting. Me too. >Ken> I propose the establish the newsgroup: >Ken> comp.graphics.research >May be comp.graphics.request should be established Would anyone use it, just like alt.pixutils (or whatever it is) where half of the current comp.graphics belongs >But I don't know >whether there will be enough traffic for the research group though. Maybe having a group without the sludge will bring out those who are tired of current situation and develope some serious discussions? I would say that a more specific group will get better results then creating another group and asking others to move to it. Jamie
bcorrie@csr (Brian Corrie) (04/29/91)
jamison@boulder.ColoState.EDU (Jamie Gulden) writes: >In article <9104270206.AA17499@nomis.csd.uwo.ca> clipper@csd.uwo.ca (Khun Yee Fung) writes: >>>>>>> On 26 Apr 91 22:20:29 GMT, turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) said: >>Ken> Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have >>Ken> thought about unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the >>Ken> articles are interesting. > Me too. The number of research discussions being carried out in this group has diminished a bit, but I wouldn't go so far as to say nothing is interesting. If you have been struggling through the high volume of this group (try reading the C/Unix groups some time 8-) you will probably have noticed that when an interesting/pertinent research oriented question gets asked, it is usually answered/replied to very promptly by those that are experts in the area. This demonstrates (to me anyway) that the people are still there. One of the problems is that researchers are busy people (both with research, and dealing with administrivia at their respective instituions), so they don't have time to spend wading through all of the info here. Another problem (as already stated by someone) is that people are reluctant to broadcast to the world (understandably) what they are going to be publishing in next years SIGGRAPH proceedings. They are out there, they are just relatively quiet. For instance, a recent burst of discussion on the RenderMan shading language in comp.graphics resulted in a posting from Tony Apodaca, one of the Pixar team that worked on it. One can't ask for better input than that. Questions get asked and answered, but often seem insignificant with respect to the number of postings that are non-research oriented. >>Ken> I propose the establish the newsgroup: >>Ken> comp.graphics.research I like this idea. >>May be comp.graphics.request should be established > Would anyone use it, just like alt.pixutils (or whatever it is) >where half of the current comp.graphics belongs This I am a bit hesitant about. I don't think a group for requests is called for at this point. Combined with the FAQ posting and the usually prompt replies, these messages are not that much of a problem, are they? They are important questions. If only people could be a little more disciplined/knowledgable about the availability of FAQ postings. >>But I don't know >>whether there will be enough traffic for the research group though. I think there will be enough traffic once it gets rolling. We just have to encourage people to discuss things more readily. > Maybe having a group without the sludge will bring out those who >are tired of current situation and develope some serious discussions? > I would say that a more specific group will get better results then >creating another group and asking others to move to it. >Jamie I think the most important factor of this proposed news group is the fact that it will allow those that don't want to wade through alot of non-research oriented postings to find those that are of interest to them. As to the issue of Moderation, I am neither for nor against it. On the one hand, moderation would provide a good research oriented discussion. Unfortuantely, someone has to take the rains and decide what is a research article. If we choose moderation, it should be of the type that filters out the ``request for A'' and ``How do I get machine B to run Ray Tracer C'' type messages. The moderator should not decide whether a given article is ``good research'' or not. If it is of a research nature, then it shold be allowed. On that note, I'll say that I don't think moderation is necessary. comp.graphics is one of the most disciplined news groups that I read. Few flame wars (although there is the odd good debate over book reviews 8-), and few nasty comments. If we start comp.graphics.research, and someone does not follow the guide lines for postings, I'm sure someone will send a polite personal email message saying that their post was not appropriate for this news group. No moderation => a better discussion (IMHO) In summary, yes to the news group, no to moderation (although I can be convinced otherwise) B -- Brian Corrie (bcorrie@csr.uvic.ca) Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, volume, humidity and other variables, the organism will do as it damn well pleases. Sounds like some of the code I have written...... 8-)
escoe@liter.cis.ohio-state.edu (James Escoe) (04/29/91)
I would also be interested in a newsgroup with a focusing on research issues. I am not so sure that there would be enough traffic on multiple new newsgroups though. -- Name: Jim Escoe | Computer and Information Science Department Email: escoe@cis.ohio-state.edu | Ohio State University, 228 Bolz Hall | 2036 Neil Avenue Mall | Columbus, OH 43210-1277 USA
pmartz@undies.dsd.es.com (Paul Martz) (04/30/91)
In article <9920@castle.ed.ac.uk>, whb@castle.ed.ac.uk (H Bruce) writes: > Good idea - but would it not be better to break comp.graphics into more than > one sub-group ? eg > > comp.graphics.3d > comp.graphics.formats etc. It'll be much easier to get those of us interested in research topics to move into a new group, than it would ever be to get all the GIF-TIFF-BIFF people moved into a new group to discuss what they have no trouble discussing right here. Excuse the run-on sentence. I think comp.graphics.research is what is needed. What happens next, CFD? -- -paul pmartz@dsd.es.com Evans & Sutherland
uselton@nas.nasa.gov (Samuel P. Uselton) (04/30/91)
I'm for the new group. .research sounds like a good name. I think the "right" moderator would be a great benefit to the rest of us. And I'd also like to keep the discussion limited to this one group until it is settled, then open up for others if other folks want that. Sam Uselton uselton@nas.nasa.gov employed by CSC working for NASA (Ames) speaking for myself PS Alain - we KNOW you would never intend to offend anyone here. Good seeing you on the net.
robert@texas.asd.sgi.com (Robert Skinner) (04/30/91)
In article <13207@goofy.Apple.COM>, turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: |> Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought about |> unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are interesting. |> |> I propose the establish the newsgroup: |> |> comp.graphics.research |> |> to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature. |> Yes, yes, yes! -- Robert Skinner robert@sgi.com "What kind of a woman would date a gangster?" - Mama Terranova
turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) (04/30/91)
clipper@csd.uwo.ca (Khun Yee Fung) writes: >... But I don't know >whether there will be enough traffic for the research group though. Comp.graphics used to have a lot more technical discussions, but many people stopped reading it because of the plethora of classifieds instead. I know that once the word gets around that there is a graphics newsgroup without all the trash, the group will become very active. -- Ken Turkowski @ Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA Internet: turk@apple.com Applelink: TURK UUCP: sun!apple!turk
msr@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Srinivas R. Manapragada) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr29.110531.20870@cc.tut.fi> jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia) writes: > >Here it goes again... How about.. > >comp.graphics.4d? (For 4D animations, 4D fractals) >comp.graphics.2.5d? (For 2.5 hidden surface algorithms, 2.5D > fractals) > >:-) :-) > >No vote for comp.graphics.3d from me. > >Juhana Kouhia Come now, it was only a thought, No vote requested and no vote taken for comp.graphics.3d :-) However there does exist a mailing list for people interested in 4d, if anybody is interested, they may send mail to fourd-request@edinburgh.ac.uk with a request to be put on the list. I do not know of one for 2.5d though ;-) In case I didn't make myself clear the last time comp.graphics.research - YES, YES, YES, ... ad infinitum (Do votes get counted twice? if so I probably will post another yes :-) I do agree that if we were to establish too narrow a scope for a group, there probably would not be much traffic, but then we never know! _Srini_
ron@vicorp.com (Ron Peterson) (04/30/91)
In article <13207@goofy.Apple.COM> turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: >Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought about >unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are interesting. > >I propose the establish the newsgroup: > > comp.graphics.research > >to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature. > >Certainly there must be other people who are interested in state-of-the-art >developments in computer graphics, aren't there? > YES! I am interested! There's got to be more going on in graphics today than virtual reality and standards definitions. What's the latest in advances in photorealism? How about automation of the animation of human figures and facial expressions? Parallel graphics processors on a chip, relativistic ray tracing, rendering the surface characteristics of flesh, and much else. ron@vicorp.com or uunet!vicorp!ron
drw900@anusf.anu.edu.au ("Drew R Whitehouse") (04/30/91)
I tend to lean towards a *.research group being moderated. (As an example of the quality of moderated groups take a peek at sci.virtual-worlds.) I know that many experienced researchers read this group so how about one/some of them coming forward and offering to moderate and lets get it going ? (Ken ?) Drew // Drew Whitehouse, E-mail: drw900@anusf.anu.edu.au // Visualization Group, Fax : +61 (0)6 247 3425 // Australian National University, Phone : +61 (0)6 249 5985 // Supercomputer Facility. // GPO Box 4, Canberra ACT Australia 2601.
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/30/91)
In article <9104270854.AA10131@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> hollasch@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Steve Hollasch) writes: turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: >> I propose the establish the newsgroup: >> comp.graphics.research > you don't create "interesting" articles by creating a new newsgroup > for them No, but you lure back the people who have interesting things to say by weeding out the trash that drove them away. That's why I strongly advocate moderation for the new group. > What usually happens with this discussion is that ... Then someone > suggests that we create a separate newsgroup for the disussion of > graphics formats. This is a solved problem, if people would just adopt the solution. EVERYONE READING THIS IN COMP.GRAPHICS, WRITE A NOTE TO YOUR SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS ASKING THAT THEY GET A FEED FOR alt.graphics.pixutils, A GROUP DEDICATED TO TALKING ABOUT GRAPHICS FORMATS, SO THAT THAT DISCUSSION CAN BE MOVED OUT OF COMP.GRAPHICS. DO IT _RIGHT_ _NOW_. Isn't that easy? > Let's PLEASE discuss this _one_ newsgroup and put it up to a vote. Sure, sure. What it takes is one strong hand to run a vote through for whatever's needed. You just need someone who will keep at the job until it is done _right_. /// It's Amiga /// for me: why Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less? -- Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization.
fmhv@minerva.inesc.pt (Fernando Manuel Vasconcelos) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr29.104754@anusf.anu.edu.au> drw900@anusf.anu.edu.au writes: > I would definitely like this, a group where you don't get >posts like - > > How do I convert image format X into image format Y...... > How do I animate gif images on my super duper VGA++ ......etc etc > > > Drew > >// Drew Whitehouse, E-mail: drw900@anusf.anu.edu.au I personaly find that no subject is uninteresting by itself. Agreed some people do post without a second thought, and thus contibute to a noise level higher then necessary, but that's live ... I mean by this that as long as the subject line agrees with the contents with the posting, and with the field of interest of the group no one should complain about it. For instance I am not at all interested in " How do I convert image format X into image format Y" so I wouldn't read any article with that subject line. I find that building a new newsgroup with the purpose of preventing some type of posting is generally a bad idea. Anyway if it isn't moderated the posting will appear, regardless of the group's name. In short, if the motivation for the group is a feeling that the actual traffic of comp.graphics is too high ( which maybe true ) I'd say YES for comp.graphics.research . If the motivation is only to prevent "uninteresting" postings I would say NO. For that purpose I find that the faq plays a better role ... -- Fernando Manuel Hourtiguet de Vasconcelos INESC - Instituto de Engenharia de fmhv@inesc.inesc.pt Sistemas e Computadores mcsun!inesc!fmhv@uunet.uu.net Rua Alves Redol No 9, sala 208 Tel: +351(1)545150 Ext. 216 Apartado 10105
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) (04/30/91)
In article <bcorrie.672942840@csr> bcorrie@csr (Brian Corrie) writes: |If we choose moderation, it should be of the type that filters out the |``request for A'' and ``How do I get machine B to run Ray Tracer C'' |type messages. The moderator should not decide whether a given article |is ``good research'' or not. If it is of a research nature, then it |shold be allowed. I agree completely. Well said that man. |On that note, I'll say that I don't think moderation is necessary. You wouldn't know it, but I believe that 110,000 people sub to comp.graphics, making it one of the biggest groups on the net. Those people are mostly there because they want to produce pretty pictures without much effort. No harm in that, but the trouble is that a lot of those people will automatically cross-post to any group that seems applicable, and comp.graphics.research will be one of them. 110,000 people is a lot of people to warn off with private email. That's why I suspect that without moderation we will still be deluged with "How do I send Postscript to a daisywheel printer?" questions. ____ \/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk \ / /\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/
jef@ee.lbl.gov (Jef Poskanzer) (05/01/91)
In the referenced message, fmhv@minerva.inesc.pt (Fernando Manuel Vasconcelos) wrote: }I find that building a new newsgroup with the purpose of preventing some type }of posting is generally a bad idea. Anyway if it isn't moderated the posting }will appear, regardless of the group's name. Yes. } If the motivation is only to prevent "uninteresting" }postings I would say NO. For that purpose I find that the faq plays a better }role ... No. This is a common misconception about the FAQ. It has nothing to do with preventing bozo postings, because bozos don't read it. All it is for is giving the rest of us a valid excuse for ignoring the bozos. Bozo postings are a fact of life. They are not going to go away. Quite the contrary, as the net continues to expand both in absolute size and in relative demographics, the bozo problem will get much worse. The way to solve it is to get a better newsreader. Making subgroups can be a good idea on its own merits. "Research" seems like a reasonable sub-topic. Maybe it's also time to bring the pixutils group into the comp hierarchy. But don't imagine that either group will do anything to get the bozos out of comp.graphics. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {apple, ucbvax, hplabs}!well!jef "Tenser, said the tensor."
mark@calvin..westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) (05/01/91)
In article<13207@goofy.Apple.COM> turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: >I propose the establish the newsgroup: > comp.graphics.research I like the idea, but I am not thrilled with moderated groups. Moderation tends to stifle free interchange of ideas (by bogging the discussion down with moderation delay), not too mention the problem of finding a moderator that has all that free time. I would propose creating an un-moderated comp.graphics.research and if everyone's fears of "mutant image format conversion junkies from hell" are realized by rampant cross posting, then we could convert to moderated. What do ya think? %~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~% % ` ' Mark Thompson CONCURRENT COMPUTER % % --==* RADIANT *==-- mark@westford.ccur.com Principal Graphics % % ' Image ` ...!uunet!masscomp!mark Hardware Architect % % Productions (508)392-2480 (603)424-1829 & General Nuisance % % % ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) (05/01/91)
I'm for it too. Put my vote in. comp.graphics.research = YES.
William Dee Rieken
Researcher, Computer Visualization
Faculty of Science and Technology
Ryukoku University
Seta, Otsu 520-21,
Japan
Tel: 0775-43-7418(direct)
Fax: 0775-43-7749
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jpfmhv@minerva.inesc.pt (Fernando Manuel Vasconcelos) (05/02/91)
In article <27588@hydra.gatech.EDU> guenter@prism.gatech.EDU (Brian Guenter) writes: >I would also be interested in such a newgroup. For purposes of research >comp.graphics has much too high a noise to signal ratio these days. >-- >Brian Guenter As someone as allready pointed out the solution for noise ratio is a better newsreader, like trn for instance. IMHO the faq plays also an inportant role in that aspect. But please don't start creating new newsgroups only because the majority of the postings don't interest you directly. That said I think that the comp.graphics group as today enough people interested in the comp.graphics.research area reading it so that a group to debate those themes would be a good idea. However do keep in mind that if the group is not moderated that will not remove "noise" . -- Fernando Manuel Hourtiguet de Vasconcelos INESC - Instituto de Engenharia de fmhv@inesc.inesc.pt Sistemas e Computadores mcsun!inesc!fmhv@uunet.uu.net Rua Alves Redol No 9, sala 208 Tel: +351(1)545150 Ext. 216 Apartado 10105
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) (05/02/91)
In article <61947@masscomp.westford.ccur.com> mark@calvin.westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) writes: >I would propose creating an un-moderated >comp.graphics.research and if everyone's fears of "mutant image format >conversion junkies from hell" are realized by rampant cross posting, then >we could convert to moderated. Good points, I agree. One thing that does occur to me is that opinion is going to be divided on moderation. Any net-admin gurus out there tell us how this is going to work? ____ \/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk \ / /\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/
turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) (05/03/91)
fmhv@minerva.inesc.pt (Fernando Manuel Vasconcelos) writes: >That said I think that the comp.graphics group as today enough people >interested in the comp.graphics.research area reading it so that a group to >debate those themes would be a good idea. Yes! Let's create the newsgroup! We can start it unmoderated now, then make it moderated when a likely moderator surfaces. -- Ken Turkowski @ Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA Internet: turk@apple.com Applelink: TURK UUCP: sun!apple!turk
uad1077@dircon.co.uk (Ian Kemmish) (05/04/91)
turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: >Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought about >unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are interesting. >I propose the establish the newsgroup: > comp.graphics.research >to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature. >Certainly there must be other people who are interested in state-of-the-art >developments in computer graphics, aren't there? >Please post your interest to this newsgroup, so that we might all >get a feel for the number of doers vs. users out there. >-- >Ken Turkowski @ Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA >Internet: turk@apple.com >Applelink: TURK >UUCP: sun!apple!turk I'd go along with that. However, something along the lines of comp.graphics.experts might be better. There are interesting topics that aren't necessarily research (esp. for someone like me who has to code fast just to keep ahead of the bailiff's). What I suspect you are really talking about is filtering out the ``how to read mumble format images'' stuff. Maybe we could hive off a comp.graphics.q&a instead? -- Ian D. Kemmish Tel. +44 767 601 361 18 Durham Close uad1077@dircon.UUCP Biggleswade ukc!dircon!uad1077 Beds SG18 8HZ United Kingdom uad1077@dircon.co.uk
murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May03.180954.3554@dircon.co.uk> uad1077@dircon.co.uk (Ian Kemmish) writes: > >I'd go along with that. However, something along the lines of >comp.graphics.experts might be better. There are interesting topics >that aren't necessarily research (esp. for someone like me who has >to code fast just to keep ahead of the bailiff's). What I suspect >you are really talking about is filtering out the ``how to read >mumble format images'' stuff. Maybe we could hive off a >comp.graphics.q&a instead? Comp.graphics.experts is, in my opinion, a terrible name. Where do you think the "how to read mumble format images" notes would get posted - in plain old c.g? or in c.g.experts, where you can find all the 'experts' on important graphics issues like the format of [A-Z]IF* files and displaying them on your VT-100. I still vote for c.g.research, because I think a word like 'research' in the title makes it a little more clear what the group is *NOT* about... And I still vote for moderation. (only with regard to the proposed newsgroup, though.. ;-) ) >Ian D. Kemmish Tel. +44 767 601 361 >18 Durham Close uad1077@dircon.UUCP >Biggleswade ukc!dircon!uad1077 >Beds SG18 8HZ United Kingdom uad1077@dircon.co.uk -- *Standard Disclaimers Apply*| ---Get Out Of HELL Free!--- John R. Murray |The bearer of this card is entitled to forgive murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu |Himself of all Sins, Errors and Transgressions. Supercomputer Research Inst.| -- D. Owen Rowley
sow@cad.luth.se (Sven-Ove Westberg) (05/06/91)
In article <13302@goofy.Apple.COM> turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: |fmhv@minerva.inesc.pt (Fernando Manuel Vasconcelos) writes: |>That said I think that the comp.graphics group as today enough people |>interested in the comp.graphics.research area reading it so that a group to |>debate those themes would be a good idea. | |Yes! Let's create the newsgroup! We can start it unmoderated now, |then make it moderated when a likely moderator surfaces. | | Sorry for clutter this news group with this. But didn't this discussion belongs to news.groups? This is comp.graphics and not a group for new group discussion. Or wasn't the start of this discussion that comp.graphics was cluttred with "triva or non graphics stuff". Sven-Ove Westberg, CAD, University of Lulea, S-951 87 Lulea, Sweden. Internet: sow@cad.luth.se
slamont@network.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May03.180954.3554@dircon.co.uk> uad1077@dircon.co.uk (Ian Kemmish) writes: >turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes: >>I propose the establish the newsgroup: > >> comp.graphics.research > >>to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature. >I'd go along with that. However, something along the lines of >comp.graphics.experts might be better. ... comp.graphics.experts is pure newbie bait. I'd vote for research, though. Followups to news.groups. spl (the p stands for perhaps you're thinking of proposing comp.graphics.wizards next? :-) ) -- Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (408) 646-2752 -- a guest at network.ucsd.edu -- NPS Confuser Center / Code 51 / Naval Postgraduate School / Monterey, CA 93943 "When people are programming virtual 5-D webs of glowing spidersilk by pure thought power -- there will still be hackers." T.Neff in alt.folklore.computers
dave@imax.com (Dave Martindale) (05/14/91)
In article <9104270206.AA17499@nomis.csd.uwo.ca> clipper@csd.uwo.ca (Khun Yee Fung) writes: [ about a proposal to establish comp.graphics.research ] >But I don't know >whether there will be enough traffic for the research group though. In the Good Old Days of comp.graphics (i.e. before the PC), there was sufficient research-oriented and programmer-oriented discussion to support a newsgroup. In fact, there still is - it's just hard to find it among all the requests these days. A separate group for research topics would pick up at least the existing research discussions in comp.graphics, plus likely lure back other researchers who have stopped reading because of the current flood of uninformative requests. Dave Martindale