Ilda format three

[dchammonds]

Back in the day when format 3 was the proposed new ILDA format I had some software online which would produce format 3 files.

But that's history. Format 3 has since been abandoned in favor of format 4&5. I've been actively working on ILDA's technical
committee on the goal to *finally* have the format 4&5 as non-draft final version up on ILDA's webpage. At the last conference
in Vegas the ILDA's board signed it off - so it is an officical standard now. Just waiting for it to appear on ILDA's website...

I once wrote a small converter .exe file which would convert any format 3 to 4&5 and vice-versa. Drop me a line if you want it.

Greetings,
Robin

Well, as promised, here's the new 24 bit color standard forever canonized in all its glory including a detail of the elusive original default palette from the distant past...

http://www.laserist.org/StandardsDoc...F14_rev011.pdf

Imprimatur: ILDA

Nihil obstat: Joseph Cardinal Cigarettes, PhD, ThD, DD, SJ

[james]

It's dated 11/16/2014.

My 50th birthday!

How did they know?

James.

[dchammonds]

You'll need to get to work on that Format 6 too, Jim! I hacked LB's IN.ild and changed the 2nd frame to a fmt 6 in a hex editor... Now LB opens only the first frame and stops loading further frames after that. You know the drill, the Standard says you must skip past unrecognized sections...

Well, you can now relax, Jimmy! In the latest incarnation of the Standard, nothing is mentioned about skipping past unrecognized format number sections... We take it all back!!!

Where are the Scribes and Pharisees when you need them...

[VibrationsOfDoom]

>>Where are the Scribes and Pharisees when you need them...<<

They're busy going on about how invalid format 3 is... Jesus will set 'em straight when he kicks 'em outta the ILDA meeting...

"Format 3 discussions in MY house?!??!"

[james]

All kidding aside, I think it is a great step in the right direction for ILDA to offer the "whole" spec in the non-members area of their website.

So, kudos to ILDA for that.

That is very inviting and complete for any laser software developer.

I hope we can all move forward with a new sense of openness when it comes to discussions about laser display standards.

Imagine if we had that kind of honest and open communication with ILDA more than 11 years ago.

None of this would be an issue. We would have a working format 3. Formats 4 & 5 might be much more future proof and we may have gotten on to more advanced ideas such as some of the more abstract and descriptive ideas like Gary has suggested.

The existence of format 3 only adds functionality to the whole set of ILDA file section formats and takes nothing away.

There is nothing wrong with debating an open standard. That's how they end up to be good standards.

And finally, Dean, calling me "Jimmy" is condescending and not cool at all in a public forum.

Plus, I took your criticisms to heart, looked at my code, and rewrote a lot of the ild file opening code. So now LB is much more sensitive to ild files with unrecognizable chunks of bytes.

Hopefully, I will be releasing a new version soon.

James.

[JohnYayas]

Why James crying?

CAUSE HE JUST GOT DUNKED ON!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=571BuZeeQjE

[james]

I'm not sure how you think I "just got dunked on".

ILDA just put the whole file spec in the public domain, where it belongs.

That's a nice statement of cooperation toward all laser software developers.

It kinda' makes all those comments by you and Steve about how ILDA doesn't have to offer their standards docs to the public pointless and false.

James.

[mixedgas]

Maybe ILDA did think about this, partially because Steve R. had a Talk with Pat M. a few months ago and got part of the Standards posted on PL with permission?

Maybe that Steve maybe had a talk with Pat about how its pointless to have standards if they are not accessible, even if its for a small fee to cover costs?

Maybe ILDA did it because the Board, Director, and Techcomm are not stuck in the dark ages?

I would not be so arrogant to say that its just me that championed opening the book. But I did mention it.


NOTHING I SAID WITH MOST STANDARDS BEING PAY TO PLAY WAS FALSE. BE CAREFUL JAMES ABOUT WHAT YOU IMPLY.

Steve

[james]

Every other private or quasi-private standards body charges for standards. Heck so do many of the government sanctioned ones.

Even the US National Electric Code is pay to play for the year that it is issued. I just bought a copy for an overseas Engineer on a project. The NEC is put together by a private non-profit corporation that had its roots in the insurance and firefighting worlds.

Try to get your hands on the IEC Laser Safety Stuff for free, for example.

DMX512 is pay to play for the official material...

Believe it or not, Authors and Typesetters and Illustrators need to be paid. Webservers and Book Printing requires money to run. That has to come from somewhere.



Steve

That is what you said (most recently).

[mixedgas]

Your above post is a Statement with no actual argument, some form of Strawman argument. Go look up " logical fallacies" James, you just committed one. In fact an unusal mistake in logic for a programmer.

See:

http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...ILDA-STANDARDS

I never said I approved of the standard not being opened. I did imply that it is not uncommon to have to obtain access by pay or request.

Your trying to win by subterfuge, when there is nothing to win nor even a fight.

Steve