LaserBoy 09-01-2008 !!!

[carmangary]

Why would you want to mix them all up? That's just a hodge podge of mess. But you can still mix the different formats if you choose.

[ildadirect]

Patrick!

Thanks so much for getting back to me and into this thread!

How much more detail do you want? I posted a rant about it as part of my LaserBoy website back in early 2005. You called me on the phone to ask me what I was doing and where I was going.

I have to admit that my answer then would have been quite different than now and my answer now is no more solid. I am an artist. I am driven to do this. I want it to be perfect; the best in the world. I want to learn from this and teach others. I want to add significantly to human knowledge.

The original ILDA sections 0, 1, 2 are fine. Adding the correct implementation of section 3 makes it excellent!

There is no need for sections 4 & 5. Get rid of them.

This should be the last thing ever changed about the ILDA file format.

James.

James --

I have sent a private email to you.

Just as a note to others... If you have a problem, question, suggestion, etc. for ILDA, please email or call directly to us. You can discuss all you want in these Forum threads, but we don't regularly read them. You'll get a lot more satisfaction and results if you simply ask us directly (email or phone).

Also, we are a small organization with much of the work being done by volunteers. It pays to be persistent. If you write once and don't hear, simply write again or maybe call. Persistence pays off!

Thanks, and I look forward to working with you, James, via email on your suggestions for the ILDA file format standard.

-- Patrick Murphy, ILDA Executive Director
(+1) 407-797-7654 anytime day/night
mail@laserist.org
www.laserist.org

[Pangolin]

Hi all,

I hope I can lend some clarity to all of this.

In October 2002, an adaptation to the ILDA File Format was proposed which included 24-bit color. At the time, I was Technical Committee Chairman. The work on the 24-bit standard was done by myself and by Steve Heminover, who I believe was a board member at the time, and liaison to the Technical Committee. Steve was also a past Technical Committee Chairman and one of the two people who came up with the ILDA File Format in the first place.

The 24-bit color encoding was indicated as format 4 and format 5 because if you look at the bit encoding, it makes perfect sense. Often times in "bit encoding" things don't appear linear like 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Instead they might appear 0, 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, etc.

In a Technical Committee Meeting which took place AFTER the initial 24-bit color work was done, Format 3 was PROPOSED by Peter Jakubek of Laser Animation, but this format was never officially accepted by ILDA. In the mean time, most people implemented Format 4 and 5 because of it's ease of understanding and implementation. It is a simple conceptual extension to the ILDA file format and I have explained how to do it in as few as two sentences. Now that's simple!!




In the following years, there was a lot of discussion about these formats and where to go with them. However, during the last ILDA Technical Committee Meeting which took place in China, it was officially decided to adopt Format 4 and Format 5 as the official standard, and to "officially abandon" Format 3 (even though it was never really accepted in the first place). This was done for a number of reasons -- some of them being that:

• It is a clear and logical extension of the original ILDA file format (Format 0 and 1)
• It could easily be implemented in firmware of simple "memory player" devices -- something that the proposed Format 3 could not
• Most people had already implemented it, including ILDA members Pangolin, Laser Animation, LOBO, and several non-ILDA members (a complete list of whom were reviewed in the meeting) but Format 3 was only implemented by relatively few people.

At the time of this writing, the gavel has come down in favor of Formats 4 and 5. The gavel came down over a year ago. (The only reason ILDA hasn't yet posted the document that explains format 4 and 5 is because of a manpower thing... But I am sure it will be posted soon.)

James, ILDA is a self-help organization and ILDA has existed for a very long time as you know. Any ILDA member is more than welcome to get involved with its committees. In fact, we are at a time when ILDA needs more participants in the technical committee, and for that matter, all committees.

If you want your software to work with official ILDA formats, then I suggest you support formats 0, 1, 2, 4 and 5. Format 3 is not, and was never an official ILDA format. Anyone supporting format 3 is not doing themselves or the industry any good, because such support would only propagate something that is not official and ultimately cause confusion -- something that standards, by their very nature, try to avoid.

I hope this clarifies the current situation and how we got here. Incidentally, there is no sense crying about this. It would be the equivalent of crying over spilt milk...

If you want to help guide the industry -- NO PROBLEM. Become a member of ILDA and get involved. That's all you have to do!!

If you don't want to become an ILDA member -- this is also NO PROBLEM!! But don't go crying when ILDA does things which are contrary to what you are doing, or won't implement what it is that you are suggesting.

Is it just me, or does all of this make perfect sense to everyone else as well???

Best regards,

William Benner

[ildadirect]

Bill --

While you were typing your explanatory note, I was replying to a private email sent by James Lehman, describing his situation.

As a side note, I want to emphasize something I wrote to James. As you suggested, Bill, these changes were made for logical reasons and not for any anti-competitive reasons. As I wrote to James:

It is not ILDA policy to deliberately alter a standard for anti-competitive reasons.... I want to make it clear to those within ILDA and outside of the association that our goal is the advancement of the laser industry. ILDA standards-setting and other activities must be fair to all parties, and must never be used for anti-competitive reasons.

That said, in all standards there are trade-offs. Not everyone can get their way on a standard. Similarly, standards do change in a pre-publication period. Some combination of this may have happened in your situation.

From your note, Bill, it looks as if the un-adoption of format 3 was part of normal standards setting. Some proposals are put forth, and they may get adopted or may not. Format 3 -- which James used -- did not become an official ILDA format. At most there is some confusion or misunderstandings regarding the formats.

Fortunately software is flexible. There are probably ways for James's software to read in "format 3" colors and optionally write them out as ILDA format 0, 1, 2, 4 or 5. This gives his customers compatibility if they want to convert their files into ILDA-compatible ones.

-- Patrick

[James Lehman]

LaserBoy already supports sections 4 & 5, so you're right in that it doesn't really matter anymore.

If you expect me to believe that you guys came up with sections 4 & 5 BEFORE someone came up with the first idea for section 3; and you actually numbered them that way as they were proposed, I do not.

Why was section 3 published as a proposal with a standard section header that matched the first three and then changed to something that was obviously wrong?

If you know how to read a palette (section 2) then how is reading section 3 any different?

Section 3 with a uniform header is in keeping with the ILDA file format. Sections 4 & 5 are outside of it and just happen to work.

You are a programmer. So is Patrick. You know this stuff better than most.

James.

[Pangolin]

If you expect me to believe that you guys came up with sections 4 & 5 BEFORE someone came up with the first idea for section 3; and you actually numbered them that way as they were proposed, I do not.

Well, maybe you don't believe it, but it's true!! You can ask Steve Heminover since he was involved in the conception of this standard. Format 4 and 5 most DEFINITELY pre-dated Format 3.

AND, you can ask anyone in the ILDA Technical Committee Meeting of 2002 when these things were discussed. There is probably also notation in the minutes of the ILDA Technical Committee Meetings.

AND!!! AVI actually ran Format 4 and Format 5 imagery within their "LaserGlobe" product at the ILDA meeting in 2002!

AND!!! You can look in transcripts from the ILDA Tech Com list server. All of this was discussed. I can probably dig up the original postings and discussions if you really want to see them...

There is a lot of documentation and people who will support the fact that format 4 and 5 are simple logical extensions to the format, and were discussed and implemented around October of 2002.

James, on a personal level, I am absolutely amazed that you can not see this from a bit-encoding standpoint!!! Formats 4 and 5 are a logical extension of 0 and 1. This is simple, logical, and makes complete sense.

Why was section 3 published as a proposal with a standard section header that matched the first three and then changed to something that was obviously wrong?

Obviously wrong? Obvious to whom? And what is "wrong" after all? Is it something where, if you don't agree with it, then it's "obviously wrong"?

If you know how to read a palette (section 2) then how is reading section 3 any different?

Reading this line of posts makes me think that you simply implemented Format 3 incorrectly from the beginning. Then you got confused and claimed people changed it. (By the way, the test frames you received were created by Peter Jakubek -- the main proponent of Format 3. If anyone could have got the format correct, it would have been him.)

Anyway, here's the deal. There really is no sense in discussing this. Format 3 has been officially abandoned by ILDA. All software packages (apparently including yours) support Format 4 and Format 5 so there really is no sense in continuing to discuss this.

Best regards,

William Benner

[James Lehman]

I don't appreciate you passing me off like I just don't know what I'm doing. I thought you would know better than that.

This:

http://www.akrobiz.com/laserboy/ilda_file_format.html

has been a part of my LaserBoy website for many years.

Like I said before, if you think opinion has anything to do with this, make your case.

James.

[Pangolin]

Hi James,

The only thing I ever intend to do is state facts. To the best of my ability, that's the only thing I ever do. If I am stating an opinion, I try to make it clear that something is my opinion and not fact.

Reading the line of posts does indeed make me think that you never implemented ILDA format 3 correctly in the first place, even if it had become an official ILDA standard. As I have re-read your web page, it makes me think this even more. That is my opinion.

And yes, I have known about your web page for a very long time. I have seen it before when you were ranting and complaining about how ILDA was doing things. Lots of people on the Technical Comittee saw it, and ignored it. (Sorry, but it's true.) Your web page states a lot of your own opinions -- not facts based on your own involvement within the committee.

What you are doing on your web page is complaining that ILDA is not listening to you. But you have not become an ILDA member and made your case directly within technical committee meetings. It could very well be that you are the smartest man on earth! But this certainly does not come through in your writings. Sometimes there is no substitute for in-person meetings.

As I have said many times in the past, and even within this own thread, if you want to help guide the industry, become an ILDA member and get involved. If you don't want to become an ILDA member, that's really fine too. No problem. But don't complain that people within ILDA are ignoring you if you are ignoring them!!

Best regards,

William Benner

[James Lehman]

The fact is that I am not a professional laserist. I don't make any money doing this. And I don't want to pay the annual fee!

I was in email contact with the person / people in question at the time and I was told about the same thing.....

At this point, I don't care! LaserBoy works fine with sections 4 & 5 and I'm pretty sure, since they have made it to production code from professionals like yourself, they will remain unchanged for a while.

LaserBoy people can now experiment with a good implementation of section 3 and see the merits for themselves.

James.

[Pangolin]

LaserBoy people can now experiment with a good implementation of section 3 and see the merits for themselves.

I would only request one thing, and I am sure that everyone within ILDA will agree.

If you want to call something "Laserboy Format 3" or "James Lehman Format 3" or "I am the smartest person in the world Format 3", there is really no problem with that. BUT, I urge you not to use the word "ILDA" anywhere near the words "Format 3" and also not to use the "ILD" file extension in conjunction with these files. The reason is because to do so would only cause confusion. The confusion will not be doing anyone any good, whether ILDA members or not.

It would be like me extending the old SASI format and calling it "SCSI Format 0". SASI is not SCSI even though there are many similarities.

I do hope you understand and will agree -- the whole point of having a standard is so that there are no surprises.

Maybe you won't see this, but I am sure others will back me up on this -- both within and outside of ILDA...

Best regards,

William Benner