LaserBoy 09-01-2008 !!!

[James Lehman]

Hmmmmmm. That exact sentiment has been my motivation all along.

It's a bummer it got all screwed up.

James.

[James Lehman]

If you can give me one good reason why the section 3 header was changed to be something different than all of the other section headers, I'd love to hear it. If you can give me another good reason why a properly implemented section 3 would be a bad thing to become a standard part of the ILDA file spec I'd love to hear that too.

Please try to keep your condescending comments to a minimum.

James.

[Banthai]

If you can give me one good reason why the section 3 header was changed to be something different than all of the other section headers, I'd love to hear it. If you can give me another good reason why a properly implemented section 3 would be a bad thing to become a standard part of the ILDA file spec I'd love to hear that too.

Please try to keep your condescending comments to a minimum.

James.

James i have followed this thread though and please take this veiw from someone on the outside looking in ... i dont really have an opinion but i have learnt a lot from this thread
but .... what bill said was right .... he has only explained fact and if its of his opinion he has stated that

when i read your first paragraph above i was really interested in what bills reply would be .... but you killed it by your bitchy comment ( in red ) as i have found nothing condescending in his posts

i have alot of respect for both of you guys ... because you both have the same objectives and the love of lasers ....

but i guess you will never see "eye to eye" which is a shame

also i thinbk that paying the $125 subs to be a member of ILDA would be a big benifit to you ( hey ... and the rest of the laser world ) , why not be a part of what you want to improve

all the best .... Karl

[buffo]

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!

James, I am not a professional laserist either. Nor am I a programmer. In fact, I don't have *anything* to do with ILDA other than the fact that I happen to use software and hardware that conforms to the standards that ILDA put fourth.

Having said that, I still joined ILDA, and I paid the fee. Patrick offered a discount to everyone that was at SELEM this year. Why didn't you take advantage of that? If you're really that passionate about changing the standard (or fixing it, if you honestly believe it's broken), then why not get involved?

Complaining that an all-volunteer organization isn't doing things the way you feel they should is pretty crass when you're not even willing to join said organization and help out...

Adam

[James Lehman]

Incidentally, there is no sense crying about this. It would be the equivalent of crying over spilt milk...



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"?



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.)

............................so there really is no sense in continuing to discuss this.

Best regards,

William Benner

This is condescending. If you really understood the 2 + 2 of this you would see it as well. I asked two very simple questions for which I still have not received any direct answers.

1. Why was the standard section 3 proposed first with a uniform section header and then later changed?

2. What is the harm in having a properly implemented section 3?

That's what I really want to know.

I think I already have the answer!

James.

[Pangolin]

1. Why was the standard section 3 proposed first with a uniform section header and then later changed?

I am 43 years old -- soon to be 44, so my memory isn't what it once was. I don't know the precise answer to your question, but my foggy recollection is this: Steve and I put forth our ideas for Format 4 and 5. In fact, by the time we put forth our ideas, it was already in operation (in AVI's LaserGlobe product), so we proved that it worked. Peter Jakubek had a different idea for how to implement "true color", so after that, he came out with an INITIAL implementation of Format 3, which basically took our header idea, and merged it with an interleaved palette idea. Then, later, other people within the committee spoke up, and it was discussed that it MIGHT be a good idea to change the header completely, and give it some extra smarts. That's when the second, revised Format 3 came out.

Incidentally, I have never believed in ANY of the implementations of Format 3. You apparently like the very first version, but this was quickly changed in favor of a later version. All of this is internal Technical Committee stuff.

(Actually you are asking a very easy question. Why was something done one way, and then changed? The answer is "committee". Just look at the US Government. Does single-digit approval ratings ring a bell? Things done "by committee" often involve severe and senseless compromises. The ILDA test pattern is a great example.)

But the big picture is that none of this even matters. Format 3 is officially abandoned. Some work was done internal to the committee -- things were tried, and they never worked as well as Format 4 and 5, so they were abandoned. That's all.

Really James your question is about history. I hate to say it, but you would know more about the history if you were directly involved.

2. What is the harm in having a properly implemented section 3?

Well, there are a few problems. First, exactly who defines "properly"? According to you, "properly" means the very earliest version of Format 3 which was quickly switched by the committee (actually, by members of the committee which supported Format 3 to begin with, of which I was never a part).

But the biggest reason why we wouldn't want anyone claiming that Format 3 is an ILDA format is "confusion".

This is really simple. Lets say someone has LaserBoy and saves what they believe is an ILDA file. Then lets say they try to load it on another platform and it doesn't load. From a user's standpoint, they are doing everything they are supposed to be doing, but it doesn't work, thus, they get confused.

Then lots of questions ensue, letters to the ILDA director, investigation by the technical committee... lots of time wasted. In the end, the CORRECT answer to the question is -- well, the file that you have really isn't an ILDA file at all.

That's the problem. And this is the truth, because the only official ILDA formats are 0, 1, 2, 4 and 5. Format 3 isn't an official format. In fact, in the file format document, it specifically states that Format 3 has been abandoned and should not be used.

If you want to use format 3 because you like the style of the data or whatever, GO AHEAD! NO PROBLEM! Just don't call it an ILDA format, because it isn't. And don't encourage confusion by saving it with an "ILD" extension. Doing so will only make you look bad, not anyone else look bad, because ILDA has set forth what should and should not be done in its name (trademarks being what they are and such...). Patrick can explain all of this a lot better than I can, but really no explanation should be necessary because all of this makes perfect sense.

I get the impression that you think that reason why the file format was changed was specifically because LaserBoy already implemented it. THAT'S NOT THE CASE!! Within a committee -- especially a technical committee, things are suggested, tried, tweaked, changed, over and over and over again. Just take a look at what has happened with the DMX-512 standard and how many YEARS! it took to get it where it is now. Things don't become an official standard until there is a document stating "hey folks, here's the official standard". It is THEN after which things can not change -- not before. Falling in love with a preliminary standard is -- apparently -- a good way go wind up with a broken heart...

I hope you don't find any of this condescending. It isn't meant to be. These are all just simple facts and that's all. Now I hope this topic is fully put to bed and we can collectively stop crying over spilt milk...

Best regards,

William Benner

[James Lehman]

I am 43 years old -- soon to be 44, so my memory isn't what it once was. I don't know the precise answer to your question, but my foggy recollection is this:

So, your answer to question 1 is that you are too old to remember? I am older than you are. We established that at SELEM.

which basically took our header idea, and merged it with an interleaved palette idea. Then, later, othr people within the committee spoke up, and it was discussed that it MIGHT be a good idea to change the header completely, and give it some extra smarts. That's when the second, revised Format 3 came out.

This is only begging the question once again..... WHY did anything need to be changed about the section 3 header? This makes me think YOU don't know what a section 2 or 3 is all about or how it should work! PLEASE describe these "extra smarts" you added! ANY ONE THING!

Incidentally, I have never believed in ANY of the implementations of Format 3. You apparently like the very first version, but this was quickly changed in favor of a later version. All of this is internal Technical Committee stuff.

Again, you push me off like a peon.

(Actually you are asking a very easy question. Why was something done one way, and then changed? The answer is "committee". Just look at the US Government. Does single-digit approval ratings ring a bell? Things done "by committee" often involve severe and senseless compromises. The ILDA test pattern is a great example.)

But the big picture is that none of this even matters. Format 3 is officially abandoned. Some work was done internal to the committee -- things were tried, and they never worked as well as Format 4 and 5, so they were abandoned. That's all.

Maybe you just never saw how nice it might be if ILDA really did work with palettes and color tables.

Really James your question is about history. I hate to say it, but you would know more about the history if you were directly involved.

I was as directly involved as I could be and you know that.

Well, there are a few problems. First, exactly who defines "properly"? According to you, "properly" means the very earliest version of Format 3 which was quickly switched by the committee (actually, by members of the committee which supported Format 3 to begin with, of which I was never a part).

You still have offered no reason why section 3 should have a different header than all the other sections, so you're question here is irrelevant. You miss the point. It is CLEARLY improper because it was made different than the others for no explainable reason.

But the biggest reason why we wouldn't want anyone claiming that Format 3 is an ILDA format is "confusion".

This is really simple. Lets say someone has LaserBoy and saves what they believe is an ILDA file. Then lets say they try to load it on another platform and it doesn't load. From a user's standpoint, they are doing everything they are supposed to be doing, but it doesn't work, thus, they get confused.

Then lots of questions ensue, letters to the ILDA director, investigation by the technical committee... lots of time wasted. In the end, the CORRECT answer to the question is -- well, the file that you have really isn't an ILDA file at all.

That's the problem. And this is the truth, because the only official ILDA formats are 0, 1, 2, 4 and 5. Format 3 isn't an official format. In fact, in the file format document, it specifically states that Format 3 has been abandoned and should not be used.

If you want to use format 3 because you like the style of the data or whatever, GO AHEAD! NO PROBLEM! Just don't call it an ILDA format, because it isn't. And don't encourage confusion by saving it with an "ILD" extension. Doing so will only make you look bad, not anyone else look bad, because ILDA has set forth what should and should not be done in its name (trademarks being what they are and such...). Patrick can explain all of this a lot better than I can, but really no explanation should be necessary because all of this makes perfect sense.

I get the impression that you think that reason why the file format was changed was specifically because LaserBoy already implemented it. THAT'S NOT THE CASE!! Within a committee -- especially a technical committee, things are suggested, tried, tweaked, changed, over and over and over again. Just take a look at what has happened with the DMX-512 standard and how many YEARS! it took to get it where it is now. Things don't become an official standard until there is a document stating "hey folks, here's the official standard". It is THEN after which things can not change -- not before. Falling in love with a preliminary standard is -- apparently -- a good way go wind up with a broken heart...

I hope you don't find any of this condescending. It isn't meant to be. These are all just simple facts and that's all. Now I hope this topic is fully put to bed and we can collectively stop crying over spilt milk...

Best regards,

William Benner

......And as always, you go on and on and on.......

Since you obviously never answered the first question as to why the section 3 header was made different.. we might as well be light-years away from what would be wrong with allowing section 3 to be used properly, with a uniform header....

You are never going to give a straight answer.

The fact is that I have never seen, with my own eyes, a system that can read ILDA files according to the full standard, as it was, even before any 24 bit extension was suggested.

I have little to no experience with laser show software other than Anarchy, in which I could manually load a palette other than the standards.

...and the QM32 version of LD, which I don't even remember, because I gave up and used the default 62 color palette.

But, I'm pretty sure that even now, no one can create a lasershow with a series of DXF files and convert them to standard palette ILDA (sections 1 & 2) saving them with the original DXF palette that they were drawn with in LaserBoy ... and expect them to open with the correct colors in any other laser vector application that claims to read ILDA.

Before you go blaming LaserBoy for being wrong, consider that my code for sections 0, 1, 4, & 5 are all dead on. It all comes from the same soup.

If you or anyone else thinks that it's better or easier to use section 4 & 5 than it is to really understand how to use sections 0, 1, 2, & 3, then I guess you should look into finding some better programmers.

Stop dodging the questions and start giving some solid, computer science engineering type answers.

James "I am the smartest person in the world Format 3".

[carmangary]

They changed it because you are gay. Is that what you want to hear? Good grief. You're acting ridiculous.

[James Lehman]

That's the best and only reason I've heard thus far!

Thanks! I'll sleep much better tonight.

James.

[Pangolin]

James,

You make a lot of assumptions and, despite my best efforts to explain everything to you from a technical and historical perspective -- and one which I can back up with cold hard facts, and transcripts from the ILDA Tech Com list while all of this was being developed -- you are basically refusing to understand this. But that's fine. I am done explaining it, because I have already explained it several times, and everyone else on the forum understands it. If everyone except you understands it, I guess that will have to be good enough for me.

But I do want to take just a little bit more time to point out one BIG assumption you have that is incorrect:

PLEASE describe these "extra smarts" you added! ANY ONE THING!

It wasn't me that changed the Format 3 header. I was not involved in any discussions for Format 3. As I have said several times, I never believed in Format 3, and still do not believe in it. It was an incarnation made originally by Peter Jakubek.

To the best of my ability to remember, it was mostly Matt Pollack who suggested that the "additional smarts" be added to the header, and Peter Jakubek seemed to go along with him. At least that's what I remember. I could dig back on the Tech Com list server archives if I really wanted to, to prove it. In fact, these details might even be in the ILDA Technical Committee Meeting minutes from 2002. But for me, it doesn't matter because Format 3 is an obsolete format. It is like discussing the Blitter chip change that happened between the Amiga 1000 and the Amiga 4000. Sure, there were changes, but who the hell cares. The Amiga is obsolete!

In my opinion, Format 3 was always a bad idea, so I never invested any of my own time or energy into it. Format 4 and 5 are THE logical extension of 0 and 1 and are so simple, that I can explain it in two sentences. On the other hand, Format 3 is so complicated, and also has some conceptual holes to the point where you have a whole fricken web page dedicated to Format 3. What does that tell you about its simplicity? It also occurs to me that anything that can be done with Format 3, could be done more easily and more compactly with Format 4 and 5. It's just plain better.

Anyway, somehow you seem to be thinking that this is a "me against you" type deal, and that somehow "I" changed Format 3, just because you were using it. Let me be perfectly clear about one thing. ALL of the work on Format 4 and 5 happened toward the end of the time I was Technical Committee Chairman. And ALL of the work on Format 3 happened after I left the chairmanship. I had absolutely nothing to do with Format 3. I had no control over it, and, because of my fundamental dislike for it, I gave no input to it at all. So if you want to blame someone for the change, you should be talking to Peter Jakubek, since he was the main architect of Format 3 and, along with Matt, they were responsible for its inception and any changes that happened along the way. Again, not that any of this matters because it's water under the bridge...


Signing off of this topic!!

William Benner