A good day for LaserBoy!

[James Lehman]

Well.... OK.

Maybe I WAS trying to be an ass.

But, when all of this was relevant, more than three years ago, about the only response I got from anyone was much the same. There are so many people out there who have so much more experience... implying that I just don't understand what I'm doing.

That gets old really fast.

No one seems to give me any credit for the things that I have figured out.

So now the story is that there is no publicly available spec from ILDA to do 24 bit color!

I might not be "hip", but I am trying to make things more open and available to all of us who love to work with laser display, professionally or not.

I still haven't found your email of format 4 & 5. I'm looking through tens of thousands of Spams in my TMDA pending folder.... OK. I got it!

Thanks.

James.

[James Lehman]

So now it takes two completely new section types to describe exactly what was (perhaps more accurately) described with the relative positions of the original three.

That's progress.

One of the nice features of the original format was the fact that the color information was kept separate from the vector positions. This made it a lot easier to read only the vector positions (the drawing) including the blanking information, while skipping over the color information. If you only have one color and no analog modulation, this is all you want. Now you have to look for that information in four different sections instead of two and you may or may not have to ignore the color you will not be using.

Genius.

James.

[drlava]

24 bit color!
We'd be lucky if the analog modulation of lasers available was consistent enough to produce 16 bit color accurately (.0015% linearity error). Even most commercial LCDs available use 10 to 12 bit color and some tricks to simulate 16 bits of dynamic range.

[Pangolin]

Hi James,

A few points.

First, if you looked at the QM32 output only briefely, and only one set of circumstances, and perhaps with the "minimum number of points" settting set to a very high number, OR with the preview window open AND a crappy video board in the computer (any of the following would have done), then maybe you would have seen what you have described. But if none of those conditions existed, then you wouldn't see a bright dot as you describe, and you wouldn't be able to tell where the scanning begins and ends -- supposedly just like LaserBoy. Thus, I really doubt there is a real difference in "energy".

Not that I care about any of this, and not that any human should care either. What matters is the visual results on the screen. That's what people pay for. And that's what entertains (or not) patrons. So that's why I say lets everybody see this stuff side-by-side at a PL meeting and judge the results for ourselves. Otherwise, all we have is a bunch of lofty words...

Second, if you write to me privately, I will send you a copy of the latest ILDA spec, including the Format 4 and Format 5 definitions. It still hasn't been released yet, much to my dismay, mostly because one person in ILDA wanted to make some minor wording changes. Once that is finally done, then it will be published on the ILDA site.

Bill

[Laser Electronics Ltd]

Dear Bill
Please correct me if I am wrong on this but the Ilda 4 & 5 formats have not been finalised or released to Ilda members, below is the following that you have posted

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Second, if you write to me privately, I will send you a copy of the latest ILDA spec, including the Format 4 and Format 5 definitions. It still hasn't been released yet, much to my dismay, mostly because one person in ILDA wanted to make some minor wording changes. Once that is finally done, then it will be published on the ILDA site.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

the Ilda format is open source so that is fine, but releasing it prior to finalisation is un wise and also could be construed by other Ilda members of insider trading with you having and releasing priveledged information that has not been made available to the paying members of Ilda prior to general public release.

All the best
Clive
Laser Electronics Ltd

[James Lehman]

Hi Bill.

Thanks for the offer of formats 4 & 5, but I already got that information from someone, whom, I believe, is also not a member of ILDA. Apparently, he implemented those sections in his code quite some time ago. But that didn't seem to raise any ILDA member comments.

Anyway, in all fairness, I do not have any other source of laser signal generation besides LaserBoy and my ADAT machine. I only have the one ADAT taped show that I produced on a QM-32.

However, I have seen LOTS of ADAT recorded shows on Steve's unblanked, one-color laser.

James.

[rMuD]

I think the documents are just mis-labeled for now.. Maybe they should be refered to as RFC's with a strong chance of being adopted.. they aren't secret documents anyway, only the Members of the tech committee can adopt it as a standard.

[Pangolin]

Hi Clive,

Please correct me if I am wrong on this but the Ilda 4 & 5 formats have not been finalised or released to Ilda members

I would say it is "all but released". It pains me that a format that was put forth I think something like 6 or 7 years ago is struggling to make it onto the ILDA web site, only because, I guess, only a few people give a damn enough about it (or have time enough) to "git er done". Not much has been done with standards, or anything else technical, since I left the position as ILDA Technical Committee Chairman six or seven years ago.

Nevertheless, the state of the document is "finished with the exception of some very minor adjustments". The "very minor adjustments" are only very very small wording changes -- nothing functional. I would be happy to send you, or anyone else, the document minus the small wording changes.

the Ilda format is open source so that is fine, but releasing it prior to finalisation is un wise and also could be construed by other Ilda members of insider trading with you having and releasing priveledged information that has not been made available to the paying members of Ilda prior to general public release.

The Format 4 and Format 5 information has been available, and essentially public domain for years. Many people have already implemented it in their products, with or without the documentation. If you don't know about it, it is only because you don't know about it, and it has nothing to do with priveledged information or insider trading. It's pretty much common knowledge by now.

I know that forums and email are low-bandwidth in nature, so I am trying very hard not to take offense to -- or laught out loud at, your last statement. I will chalk it up to not coming across on the page, the way you meant it to.

In any event, as has always been the case -- anybody within ILDA could request the information and they would be directed to the proper person from whom to get the information (which would probably be me because ILDA has had an absence of any real Technical Committee Chairman for years). I know that at least one other PL member has taken that very path to get the document. It's all real simple math -- nothing "priviledged" about it...


Best regards,

William Benner

[Laser Electronics Ltd]

Hi Bill

My apologies if as it appears within your reply that you have taken a certain amount of um bridge at my post, it was not meant to be offensive or derogatory, however I would ask that you return me the same amount of respect that I have for you, instead of making vain comments like the one below, it is not appropriate for educated and intellectual people like ourselves to try to be-little others.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I know that forums and email are low-bandwidth in nature, so I am trying very hard not to take offense to -- or laught out loud at, your last statement. I will chalk it up to not coming across on the page, the way you meant it to.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

My reason for posting was two-fold:

A: To highlight the fact that the 4 & 5 formats have not been released and to use them at this stage may be mis-leading because both you and I as engineers know, that even a small change that may not seem significant, even down to the correct phrasing of the wording required to use the format may lead the person whom is trying to interpret the format down the wrong path.

Is it not apparent from your statement that people whom implement an unfinished format then in turn attribute to that format being incompatible with the true format because they have been given incomplete or mis-leading information regarding the format prior to the official release.

B: If as you stated:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Format 4 and Format 5 information has been available, and essentially public domain for years. Many people have already implemented it in their products, with or without the documentation. If you don't know about it, it is only because you don't know about it, and it has nothing to do with privileged information or insider trading. It's pretty much common knowledge by now.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Why would you post the statement below:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Second, if you write to me privately, I will send you a copy of the latest ILDA spec, including the Format 4 and Format 5 definitions. It still hasn't been released yet, much to my dismay, mostly because one person in ILDA wanted to make some minor wording changes. Once that is finally done, then it will be published on the ILDA site.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It would have been far better to either post the specification or a link to the appropriate web placement for the relevant information, asking a person to email you privately for information that you are claiming is public domain, suggests that the information is privileged and that if the person whom requires it emails you, then you will partake of that information.

Please do not take offense to my statements but if you were viewing this from an outside perspective, can you see how the statements you have made appear.

Best Regards

Clive
Laser Electronics Ltd

[James Lehman]

Oh for God's sake!

Here it is, almost three and a half years since I've known anything about the 24 bit ILDA format issue, and it still hasn't been resolved!

Pathetic.

I have no idea when the original ILDA file format was created; apparently some time in the Stone Age. Although not exactly perfect, it was designed to be accurate and somewhat thrifty with storage requirements; not a bad thing when it was being used on computers that had K of ram not M. It managed to serve its purpose for many years.

Almost certainly, it was designed at a time when true color video cards were very rare and expensive. True color has since become an invisible standard that no one even thinks about anymore. Do you remember palette only video cards? I do.

The first proposal to extend ILDA to 24 bit color that I ever heard about was described to me, on the phone, by Matt P.

BRILLIANT!

It is the smile on The Mona Lisa! Whoever came up with THAT idea should really get one of those coveted ILDA technology awards! It's that good!

It was published for a while as the new proposal. But for some reason, probably a territorial pissing issue, it was changed.

This is all spelled out in nauseating detail here:
http://www.akrobiz.com/laserboy/ilda_file_format.html

When that hacked format was found to be not-so-brilliant, it was dumped and replaced with yet-another-bad-idea.

Now the ether is polluted with ILDA files of undetermined contents. Hence my comments:

"This kind of industry manipulation is not good for anyone."
"It is highly irresponsible to publish crap as a world standard."

The original GOOD idea was so streamlined and seamless! But, it probably needed some extra verbiage to ensure a proper understanding of some rules that might otherwise be implicit and perhaps missed.

The only difference between a palette section 2 and a color table section 3 is the total number of colors! You get that number from the header before you get the data that follows. And you get ALL of that information before you need to apply it to the vector section that comes next. The only difference in the use of this data is how it is logically connected to these vectors. That difference is to use either the palette index to the previous palette in the case that it was < 256 colors or the vertex index if it was >256. It isn't really necessary to label the section headers different! They could both be section 2. The distinguishing mark is the total number of colors! If a vector drawing has fewer than 256 vertices, then section 2 and section 3 can be exactly the same thing at the same time!

That's it! Put it to bed! If the objective is to evolve the format to something that can do things outside of the scope of this information, then start a new format; ILDA-2. Keep these file formats away from each other entirely! (*.il2).

In a new format we would have a chance to create much more flexible sections in a much more future-proof, structured way. We could, for example, include abstract concepts like circles, polygons, spline curves, without having to define every vertex; much like DXF. We could indicate the importance of each vertex in the drawing, making it possible to know which vertices can be skipped with the least negative effect on the resulting image for slower scanners. We could also include sections that describe animation effects to be applied to these static images; almost like a dance choreography notation. How about time synchronization cues? Maybe a comments section or a way to describe the use of laser light in a way not associated with scanners at all; like lumia and diffraction gratings. Anything is possible if the file structure is designed to take chunked data in sections; provided it is done properly and the size of the whole section IN BYTES is stored in a uniform section header.

Do I really need to call Patrick M. right now and let him debit my card for $200 to make this true or relevant?

I will!

James.