ILDA Format BS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heroic

James:

You'd do a lot better if you'd stop harping on about the ILDA file format. We all know it's deficient in a couple of ways. Why don't you design something better?

---

I didn't invent any part of the ILDA file format that has been implemented in LaserBoy.

As you may know, LaserBoy implements 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.

All of these structures were described to me by ILDA

in a document (0, 1, 2)
on the phone (3)
in a document (3)
in a document (3 busted)
in a document (4, 5)

I had 0, 1, 2, & 3 in 2004.

If 3 had been adopted, 4 & 5 would not need to exists.

I published this, in January of 2005.

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

You know the old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out".

There are countless thousands of good reasons to use 0, 1, 2 & 3.

Every time I bring it up I'm beeing an asshole.

Take a look at the long liteny of redicule that I have endured for this cause.

All I've ever asked for is for the right people to come forward and explain why we need a different header for format 3!

That's it!

That is the core issue. With no answer to that there is NO format 4 or 5.

All I want is a good f*$king standard way to share art.

As far as inventing my own format is concerned, I kinda' have. I think my extensions to the use of wave files is going to be very important to the industry in coming years.

James. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Lehman

I....
All I want is a good f*$king standard way to share art.

...
James. :)

---

There is - it's called the ILD file format!
That IS the "standard", and the vast majority of the world that uses laser graphics seems to use it just fine!

Perhaps it doesn't do what YOU want it to do, bit it is the "standard".

"Standards", unfortunately, tend to be that way, be it file formats, hardware specifications, aviation procedures, etc., etc. There's almost always going to be "better" way to do something for some particular cases, but the "standards" generally fit the bill for the masses, which is the intent.

AND, in most cases, to get the "standards" changed, it takes direct, meaningful involvement - and a lot of time - actually spent working with the organization that created the standard. That time of involved, developmental change is rarely, if ever, going to be implemented by posting in an open online forum.

Dammit man... new year old argument. You're not being an asshole, you're being passionate, and letting your emotions control your reactions.

You know I am totally ignorant to this, but I am sure this movement, protest, revolution... what ever you are trying is not going to get resolved this way and in here. You are going to have to bite the bullet, toss on a suit and tie, and start shaking some hands and kissing some babies; join the association (conform), goto the meetings and form a following. I know you don't want to do that, but to change the system you are going to have to work with the system and from within the system. Go for a format 6 based on 3... or something. :confused: :o

It is the same way with life; you have to work within the framework of reality that has been provided. ;) All the tools are here, you just have to learn how to use them. :cool:

Now that is some of the best advice I've heard on this Format 3 debate in a long time.

James, if you're unwilling to let it go, then Aaron is right. Join ILDA, volunteer to be on the tech standards committee, and then present your case. Calmly, sedately, and without emotion. (Even if you believe it was changed with malice in mind, that doesn't mean emotion is justified to be involved in the solution.)

But I have to say, you're looking at an uphill battle. Any change now would force all the other software companies to make changes to their code. For guys like you and Carmangary, that's not such a big deal. But for poor OldGrumpy, who is going blind just trying to fix the bugs in Mamba Black, implementing a new file format is likely to be low on his priority list. I imagine other laser show software companies are not going to be much more receptive to the idea.

Nevertheless, complaining about it here on PL does nothing to change it.

Adam

I worked on this issue from the moment I was aware of it; which was before anything had been posted about 24-bits on the ILDA website.

I was in private conversation by phone and email with the committee chair and private email conversation with someone who seems to be "the brains" behind the operation.

I tried very hard to get involved in a non provocative way.

Every time I wrote anything about it in a public forum, it immediately turned into me getting trashed.

There are two things that bother me about this:

a. The international standard file format is nowhere near as good as it should be.

b. Bureaucracy and horseshit stomp the piss out of rational thinking, yet again.

Why is it so much to ask a simple question and expect to get a straight answer?

Roll the tape back to 2004...

Pretend like the ILDA Code of Ethics actually applies.

Why do we need a non uniform header for format 3?

James. :)

Aren't they all flawed anyway? Laser projectors give us the possibility to use an arbitrary number of monochromatic light sources of any wavelength, making the RGB models obsolete. By using RGB models we are denying ourself access to many beautiful colors. Not all color models have this limitation; for example CIELAB has a gamut that is even larger than human vision.

I think the time has come for a new standard file format for laser graphics; one that is actually suitable for the purpose.

As an indication, even Windows has built-in support for multiple color channels (more than 3) now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Color_System

As for the ILDA format, I think it's rather poor. I've had way too many issues with those files considering how little I use them.

James

Why don’t you take a page out of Cisco Systems book?

Cisco for those that don’t know is one of the largest IT networking companies around.

With Cisco, if there isn’t a protocol or format that exists they’ll make one and wait for the rest of the industry to either adopt it or allow the industry to adapt it to a new standard (Cisco benefits from this because they’ve already have most of the work done to implement it)

If there is a protocol or standard in existence but it doesn’t work for them, they will make their own but at the same time still support the other protocols/standards, just with reduced functionality.

In both cases if the protocol/standard offers something that exceeds the existing solutions other vendors will pick it up and run with it, thus making it the new standard.

This is also a way of demonstrating what you believe to be better, you can talk about it all day long but most people will ignore or not care about it, where as if you can demonstrate that it’s better people will take note and adopt what you have to offer and then maybe adopted as a new standard.

Beside most companies around the world that produce software will have their own file format/protocols to allow them to do thing that the standard won’t allow.

Yes, this would make your software create a format that can’t be read by other software, therefore you need to contact other software developer and talk to them about including your format in their software.

This is going to be an uphill battle for you for two main reasons:

1. (Please don’t take this personally) your software isn’t mainstream, yes it probably does have a lot of users but most are hobbyist not professionals.
2. Your software is only one part of a two part solution, (frame creation tool with no show player)

I image that carmangary could be persuaded to include in Spaghetti if it provided additional feature that made his software “unique”

Again, you need to be able to demonstrate it and show the benefits of it, and then one day it may become the new standard or part of it.

Wave files are not the answer. For starters, they force a model which may not be de rigeur for much longer. With the way things are happening in the world of manufacturing, it may not be that long before we are seeing MEMS scanners everywhere. Your wave files are going to be hideously inadequate when that happens. So are ILDA files with their pulled points and their assumptions of points-per-second- how bad is a 30k file going to look when everyone's scanning 300k with their 2-axis MEMS scanners?

What is needed is something more like DXF. Describe the frame, then let the machines deal with the difference between ideal and physical.

While you're at it, you could define a digital bitstream format for controlling projectors. ILDA analogue is a bit past its sell-by date.

Build it, James, and they will come. You know where I work. We make standards up, if no standards that will do what we want are available. You could do likewise- and no, I do not mean "abuse WAV into holding laser frames". That's what Microsoft would do.

I think you understand that there is a wonderful disconnect between laser vector art and a common multi channel sound card.

Both of these concepts can be totally generisized.

You shouldn't need to know anything special about either end.

I think analog, electro magnetic scanners will be around for a while. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I kinda' think the primitive and limiting nature of the image is a big challenge that makes the art form more interesting.

Otherwise, just use a super powerful video projector.

James. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuka

Whew - FINALLY!

I was beginning to think we were actually going to get through this thread without someone taking a cheap shot at Pangolin or Bill Benner... :rolleyes:

You know James, a lot of us really try to give you the credit you deserve for the work you've done with your Laserboy development.
You consistently make that difficult for us by coming across, once again, as just slightly more than an attention-grubbing asshole - NOT because of your so-called "passion" for your interests, but because of the way you openly treat and degrade people who aren't in total agreement with you.

And you wonder why you get the response you do from some of the PL forum members...:(

---

Quote moved from ILDA Accreditation.

I keep asking one simple question and all I get is side-tracking BS.

Why is it so hard for one person to come forward and answer one question?

I didn't bring Bill Benner's name into it this time.

Who says he has ANYTHING relevant to say about it at all?

I never asked him directly anyway!

All he's ever said is that he CAN'T answer the question!

And he still comes off as "The Final Word!"

James. :)

BTW That wasn't a cheap shot at Bill at all.

It was a sarcastic response to White-Light's perception of Bill's infallibility.