Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"NY" wrote

| I'd say that "bitmap" is synonymous with "raster": ie as distinct from
| vector. It is a generic term for an image that is made up of a rectangular
| grid of pixels, each with a certain brightness (or RGB triad of
| brightnesses).
|
| Windows rather hijacked that meaning by inventing a non-compressed file
| format which consists of exactly width x height samples (eg at 8 or 24
bits
| depth) with no run-length or JPEG compression.

That's the BMP format, but they use "bitmap"
the same way. The GDI graphics functions all
deal with DIBs, or device independent bitmaps,
by which they just mean the array of byte
values representing the pixel grid.

| Sun had a very similar format
| called RAS (raster) which is totally uncompressed. I hadn't realised that
| Macs didn't have an equivalent, though I imagine it would be very easy for
| an app to have a module that could read/write .bmp or .ras files if
| required.

That's the point I've been trying to clarify: With
raster graphics that's what they all do. If you
want to write a BMP you write a small header and
follow that with the byte array. If you want a JPG
you make a different header and send the byte
array to a function that compresses it. If you want
to crop or brighten you process the byte array
accordingly. But it's all bitmaps -- byte arrays.
The only reason *not* to write a BMP is file
size.

I don't know whether Macs have a basic bitmap
format. It's not easy to figure those things out.
In Windows we say fill up with 87 octane gasoline.
In Mac they say, "Go to the gas station when the red
light goes on." They try to make things easy and
simple. So neither their docs nor their fans are
usually knowledgeable.

"Mayayana" wrote in message
news
I don't know whether Macs have a basic bitmap
format. It's not easy to figure those things out.
In Windows we say fill up with 87 octane gasoline.
In Mac they say, "Go to the gas station when the red
light goes on." They try to make things easy and
simple. So neither their docs nor their fans are
usually knowledgeable.

Knowing Apple they'd say "Go to the gas station and pull up at the pump with
a square (instead of cylindrical) nozzle on the holster" - because they like
to reinvent everything and do everything differently from everyone else.
They probably also won't let you control how much fuel you take on board,
and will only let you fill the tank to the brim, on the basis that "why
should you want to do differently" (answer: because the fuel is very
expensive and you only want to buy enough to get you to a cheaper garage).

I find whenever I ask an Apple person "who do I do this on the Mac"
(something that I would know instinctively how to do on Windows) and the
answer isn't "You do it like this" or even "Hmm. I'm not sure". Instead it's
often "Why would you even *want* to do that?".

A case in point is how to copy photos that my wife took on her iPad. Nothing
as simple as plugging in a USB cable and seeing the iPad as a device in
Windows, as you would with Android or with a dedicated camera. Oh no. No
folders (eg DCIM) show on Windows for the iPad. Goodness know how you are
supposed to do it, unless they expect you to attach each photo to an email
and send them that way. They probably can't see further than automatically
uploading the photos to some cloud storage, which isn't possible if you
don't have an internet connection - and that's internet to the outside
world, as opposed to a local wifi router for local SMB server access even
though there's no connection to the outside world, as is the case in the
middle of the ocean on a cruise liner.

In article , NY
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens focal
length, not field of view of the subject.

actually, it's aperture.

This means that if you take a
photo on 120 film and on 35 mm, with appropriate focal lengths of the two
lenses to give the same field of view of the subject in both cases, and use
the same aperture, the DOF will be less on the 120 photo than the 35 mm
photo.

nope. it will be identical for the same image quality.

So if 80 mm gives a certain field of view on 120 and 50 mm gives the
same field of view (ie shows the same extent of the subject) on 50 mm, and
both lenses are at f 4 (and so both will use the same shutter speed for the
same speed of film), the 120 photo will have a shallower DOF. That is why it
is so difficult to get shallow DOF on a compact or phone camera, because the
lens is such a short focal length to suit the very small sensor, that almost
everything is in focus even at a wide aperture (and the lens might have more
artifacts and aberrations than the comparable lens that gives the same field
of view for a 35 mm camera).

only because the lens on the cellphone can't open wide enough to match
the depth of field of the larger sensor camera.

however, the lens on larger sensor camera will likely be able stop down
to match the depth of field of the cellphone camera. some lenses might
not, but that's a physical lens limitation.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

I used to sometimes get into debates
about this in a photo group. One of the photographers
was very talented, but a strong Mac partisan and
not so experienced with computers. He insisted that
bitmaps were outdated and a Windows invention,
simply because Macs don't have BMP files. He thought
I was "obsessed" with bitmaps. I couldn't
get it across to him that a JPG holds a bitmap. He
thought of it as a more modern, more
sophisticated, kind of image.

bmp is a windows file format which is fully supported on macs, as
you've been told before.

jpegs hold compressed data, which is decompressed into what you're
incorrectly calling a bitmap, nor does it have anything to do with bmp
files.

In article , NY
wrote:

I used to sometimes get into debates
about this in a photo group. One of the photographers
was very talented, but a strong Mac partisan and
not so experienced with computers. He insisted that
bitmaps were outdated and a Windows invention,
simply because Macs don't have BMP files. He thought
I was "obsessed" with bitmaps. I couldn't
get it across to him that a JPG holds a bitmap. He
thought of it as a more modern, more
sophisticated, kind of image.

I'd say that "bitmap" is synonymous with "raster": ie as distinct from
vector. It is a generic term for an image that is made up of a rectangular
grid of pixels, each with a certain brightness (or RGB triad of
brightnesses).

Windows rather hijacked that meaning by inventing a non-compressed file
format which consists of exactly width x height samples (eg at 8 or 24 bits
depth) with no run-length or JPEG compression. Sun had a very similar format
called RAS (raster) which is totally uncompressed. I hadn't realised that
Macs didn't have an equivalent, though I imagine it would be very easy for
an app to have a module that could read/write .bmp or .ras files if
required. Does it have any bitmap/raster file format that is lossless,
either by being uncompressed or else using a lossless compression algorithm.

macs natively support bmp files, along with several other formats.

ignore anything mayayana says about macs.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

I don't know whether Macs have a basic bitmap
format. It's not easy to figure those things out.
In Windows we say fill up with 87 octane gasoline.
In Mac they say, "Go to the gas station when the red
light goes on." They try to make things easy and
simple. So neither their docs nor their fans are
usually knowledgeable.

you don't know anything about macs or its documentation, which clearly
explains how it all works.

In article , NY
wrote:

A case in point is how to copy photos that my wife took on her iPad. Nothing
as simple as plugging in a USB cable and seeing the iPad as a device in
Windows, as you would with Android or with a dedicated camera.

it really is that simple. connect the ipad and use whatever software
you would normally use with any other digital camera. even explorer
works.

Oh no. No
folders (eg DCIM) show on Windows for the iPad. Goodness know how you are
supposed to do it, unless they expect you to attach each photo to an email
and send them that way. They probably can't see further than automatically
uploading the photos to some cloud storage, which isn't possible if you
don't have an internet connection - and that's internet to the outside
world, as opposed to a local wifi router for local SMB server access even
though there's no connection to the outside world, as is the case in the
middle of the ocean on a cruise liner.

nonsense.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

I used to sometimes get into debates
about this in a photo group. One of the photographers
was very talented, but a strong Mac partisan and
not so experienced with computers. He insisted that
bitmaps were outdated and a Windows invention,
simply because Macs don't have BMP files. He thought
I was "obsessed" with bitmaps. I couldn't
get it across to him that a JPG holds a bitmap. He
thought of it as a more modern, more
sophisticated, kind of image.

bmp is a windows file format which is fully supported on macs, as
you've been told before.

jpegs hold compressed data, which is decompressed into what you're
incorrectly calling a bitmap, nor does it have anything to do with bmp
files.


What's a bitmap in your universe?

ask that of mayayana, who thinks everything is ultimately a windows
bmp, including decompressed jpeg data. read what he wrote again.

tl;dr - bmp files != bitmap data, more accurately called a pixel map
because each pixel contains more than one bit.

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-08-14 09:01, Mayayana wrote:
[...]
But bitmap is a standard term in Windows
programming. It's not just any image data. It's
specifically defined and is specifically not JPG, TIF,
GIF, or RAW file data.
[...]

Two common meanings of "bitmap":

bitmap == a standard file format for storing image data, extension.bmp
bitmap == a digital image consisting of a list of pixel specifications.
This includes the other standard pixel-mapping formats (.RAW, .jpg, etc)

The other method of digitising an image is vector graphics, which
consists of a description of the objects (shapes) that constitute the
image. There are several standard formats for this, too.

The underlying concept in both is halftone or raster graphics as used in
printing from approximately the mid-1800s onward, when the first
techniques for converting photographs to printable images were invented.

The concept/method of using dots to create an image is very, very old as
in:
a) Using dots (and short lines) to create the illusion of depth in
drawing and engraving;
b) Pointillism, a style of painting using small spots of paint instead
of brushstrokes; see Seurat's paintings;
c) Mosaics, in which small coloured stones/bits of glass/bits of pottery
are used to build up the image;
d) Weaving, in which the crossing points of the warp and woof can be
arranged to make images;
e) Tapestry and carpets, in which the dots are created by inserting or
applying bits of coloured thread;
f) CRT display, in which dots of phosphor constitute the image;
g) Etc (I'm sure I left something out ;-) )

The oldest examples of the method are images of hands created by
spraying paint (blowing it out of one's mouth, apparently) to create a
"shadow" of the hand. The earliest of these are thousands of years old.

Have a good day,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap

"In some contexts, the term bitmap implies one bit per pixel,
while pixmap is used for images with multiple bits per pixel.
"

That's the history of the terminology.

And that's also related to BitBLT. Back in the day,
a system would have BITBLT as a form of graphics
acceleration. And it worked on bitmaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_blit

That predates lots of other graphics acceleration
technologies. The article says BITBLT came from
Xerox PARC.

There was a short era of B&W graphics in there,
which really nobody got to see. The monitor may have
been monochrome (capable of gray scale), but the
frame buffers only had "1 bit pixels". Just black
and white as choices.

Pixmaps came later.

Paul

"Paul" wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-08-14 09:01, Mayayana wrote:
[...]
But bitmap is a standard term in Windows
programming. It's not just any image data. It's
specifically defined and is specifically not JPG, TIF,
GIF, or RAW file data.
[...]

Two common meanings of "bitmap":

bitmap == a standard file format for storing image data, extension.bmp
bitmap == a digital image consisting of a list of pixel specifications.
This includes the other standard pixel-mapping formats (.RAW, .jpg, etc)
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap

"In some contexts, the term bitmap implies one bit per pixel,
while pixmap is used for images with multiple bits per pixel.
"

That's the history of the terminology.

The term "bitmap" in computing doesn't only refer to picture image
data. For example, the Mac file system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_File_System

"Logical block 3 is the starting block of the Volume Bitmap, which
keeps track of which allocation blocks are in use and which are free.
Each allocation block on the volume is represented by a bit in the
map: if the bit is set then the block is in use; if it is clear then
the block is free to be used..."

In article , Apd wrote:


The term "bitmap" in computing doesn't only refer to picture image
data. For example, the Mac file system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_File_System

"Logical block 3 is the starting block of the Volume Bitmap, which
keeps track of which allocation blocks are in use and which are free.
Each allocation block on the volume is represented by a bit in the
map: if the bit is set then the block is in use; if it is clear then
the block is free to be used..."

as it is in other file systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS#Metafiles
$Bitmap
An array of bit entries: each bit indicates whether its corresponding
cluster is used (allocated) or free (available for allocation).

https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.p...lock_and_inode
_Bitmaps
The data block bitmap tracks the usage of data blocks within the
block group.
The inode bitmap records which entries in the inode table are in use.
As with most bitmaps, one bit represents the usage status of one data
block or inode table entry. This implies a block group size of 8 *
number_of_bytes_in_a_logical_block.

Apd wrote:
"Paul" wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-08-14 09:01, Mayayana wrote:
[...]
But bitmap is a standard term in Windows
programming. It's not just any image data. It's
specifically defined and is specifically not JPG, TIF,
GIF, or RAW file data.
[...]

Two common meanings of "bitmap":

bitmap == a standard file format for storing image data, extension.bmp
bitmap == a digital image consisting of a list of pixel specifications.
This includes the other standard pixel-mapping formats (.RAW, .jpg, etc)
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap

"In some contexts, the term bitmap implies one bit per pixel,
while pixmap is used for images with multiple bits per pixel.
"

That's the history of the terminology.

The term "bitmap" in computing doesn't only refer to picture image
data. For example, the Mac file system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_File_System

"Logical block 3 is the starting block of the Volume Bitmap, which
keeps track of which allocation blocks are in use and which are free.
Each allocation block on the volume is represented by a bit in the
map: if the bit is set then the block is in use; if it is clear then
the block is free to be used..."

But this reference has nothing to do with images, so
we cannot become concerned about whether it should
be bitmap or pixmap.

The volume bitmap is a packed structure of booleans.
Each individual bit, represents the presence or absence
of some sector, from some "property".

If you were to copy the bitmap, into a rectangular monochrome
image on the computer screen, it would be a "feast for the eye"
showing the distribution of sectors having that property.

The units of computer storage include

bits nibbles bytes words

Structures can be packed with any of those.
Some of the terms are more precise than others
(words leaves a lot to the imagination).

With equal value, the thing could have been
called a "sector map" or "occupied map" or some
descriptor other than describing how it is implemented.
Such a map structure could have been constructed
with other size storage elements, and the operating
principle would remain the same.

The term was coined by marketers or evangelists
who wanted to show their concept was superior
to a competing concept. The name is meant
to evoke a notion of "efficiency".

G53OPS - Operating Systems "Tracking Free Blocks"

http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~pszgxk/cou...reeblocks.html

The scheme also makes it possible to implement
a partition "fill from the left" policy, where
the leftmost free block is a choice for the
next created file. That scheme has its own pluses
and minuses.

Paul

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| So it's still a bitmap, but the green at least has more resolution.
| (Similar to the habit in some video circuitry - reflecting the response
| of the human eye - of "luminance on green".)
|
| How you convert this into normal RGB - which you have to do to actually
| _use_ it; after all, the R and G parts have only the resolution of the
| quartets - involves assorted compromises, in particular to avoid edge
| effects.

I still don't really understand that. It sounds like
you have experience with optics. I understand what
a bitmap is and how it works. Even after reading
articles I can't explain the actual mechanics of
RAW image storage.

No, I have no experience with optics. (Well, a - very brief - bit I
learnt about how colour aberration is dealt with, which I learnt when
working in the obsolescence department: you'd think a lens, once
designed, wouldn't go obsolescent, but it does when you can no longer
get the specified glass!; however, that had no effect on what we're
talking about here.)

What I learnt about from reading the two articles Paul pointed us to was
that the image sensors in modern cameras have four sensors for each
pixel, rather than the three (RGB) we might have expected - there are
two "green" ones. Which means the raw (RAW) data from the sensor array
has green data with higher resolution than RGB-data per pixel would.
(Often more than 8 bits, as well.) And that the conversion of these four
values into the three we need for a "normal" bitmap, involves clever
processing, and compromises, to get round the problems of edge effects
and other things, such as the fact that the red and blue "scans" use
pixels that are slightly offset. (They've gotta be - any one sensor
element can only detect one colour, you can't have two in exactly the
same place.)

Whether to call that a bitmap is, I suppose, a
matter of terminology. I guess "bitmap" is actually
outdated, since it's really a byte-based pixel map.

But bitmap is a standard term in Windows
programming. It's not just any image data. It's
specifically defined and is specifically not JPG, TIF,
GIF, or RAW file data.
The string or array of file bytes defining pixels from
2 colors to 24-bit color is the only thing normally
referred to as a bitmap. It's central to computer
raster graphics functionality. And there's good reason
for that: A bitmap in that definition is the way that
digital images can be worked with/printed/displayed.
The other forms -- various file formats -- are storage
vehicles for that bitmap data.

Agreed.

Whether you want to see it onscreen or edit it,
you're always dealing with that string of bytes
that represent a grid of color points. The rest is

And they _have_ to be uncompressed for viewing or editing.

packaging. And in that sense, RAW is a different
animal. It's not a package for an RGB bitmap that
can be displayed onscreen or edited with standard
computer graphics software.

Not RGB, no. RGGB (or RGBG or whatever). It's still a set of numbers
that represent a grid of sensor elements - it's just that the grid isn't
RGB.

I think that's an important concept to understand
in order to understand how other image formats fit
in. Not understanding it accounts for much of the
reason that even photographers are often attached
to JPG. They don't understand the image format
landscape or what an image is in terms of digital
computing.

JP(E)G is a compression format, usually applied to RGB-matrix grid data
(there's a greyscale variant too). Given what it stands for, I don't
think it's ever applied to other than image data, especially as it's
lossy, taking advantage of how the human brain works (much as mp3 does
for sound), and those losses probably would cause unacceptable
corruptions if applied to anything other than image grid data. As you
say, its lossy nature renders it inappropriate for serious work; I
imagine the only photographers who use it (except your one below) are
ones who have found that it's what their customers want - and you do
what the customer wants if you want to survive, however much it might
affect your scruples. (Probably getting round it by using such
ridiculous image sizes that the artefacts remain mostly invisible.)

I used to sometimes get into debates
about this in a photo group. One of the photographers
was very talented, but a strong Mac partisan and
not so experienced with computers. He insisted that
bitmaps were outdated and a Windows invention,
simply because Macs don't have BMP files. He thought
I was "obsessed" with bitmaps. I couldn't
get it across to him that a JPG holds a bitmap. He
thought of it as a more modern, more
sophisticated, kind of image.

Well, he was just dim, if he didn't realise that a JPEG _is_ a bitmap.



--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:


What I learnt about from reading the two articles Paul pointed us to was
that the image sensors in modern cameras have four sensors for each
pixel, rather than the three (RGB) we might have expected - there are
two "green" ones.

then you didn't understand what you read.

Which means the raw (RAW) data from the sensor array
has green data with higher resolution than RGB-data per pixel would.

no, it doesn't mean that at all.

(Often more than 8 bits, as well.) And that the conversion of these four
values into the three we need for a "normal" bitmap, involves clever
processing, and compromises, to get round the problems of edge effects
and other things, such as the fact that the red and blue "scans" use
pixels that are slightly offset. (They've gotta be - any one sensor
element can only detect one colour, you can't have two in exactly the
same place.)

it doesn't work that way.

you need to read and understand more technical articles than what paul
pulled up in a keyword search (he doesn't understand it any more than
you do).




I used to sometimes get into debates
about this in a photo group. One of the photographers
was very talented, but a strong Mac partisan and
not so experienced with computers. He insisted that
bitmaps were outdated and a Windows invention,
simply because Macs don't have BMP files. He thought
I was "obsessed" with bitmaps. I couldn't
get it across to him that a JPG holds a bitmap. He
thought of it as a more modern, more
sophisticated, kind of image.

Well, he was just dim, if he didn't realise that a JPEG _is_ a bitmap.

it isn't.

jpeg is a compressed file format, which has nothing whatsoever to do
with bmp files.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap
...Similarly, most other image file formats, such as JPEG, TIFF, PNG,
and GIF, also store bitmap images (as opposed to vector graphics),
but they are not usually referred to as bitmaps, since they use
compressed formats internally.

In message , Wolf K
writes:
[]
The other method of digitising an image is vector graphics, which
consists of a description of the objects (shapes) that constitute the
image. There are several standard formats for this, too.

Yes, there were great things predicted for them (about the time
Mandelbrot designs were popular). With the exception of matters
concerning fonts (typefaces), little seems to have come of them.
[]
b) Pointillism, a style of painting using small spots of paint instead
of brushstrokes; see Seurat's paintings;

I did hear that at least some of the exponents of that style had
developed it by examining half-tone images in printed material (they
were somewhat poor people and mass-produced images were the only ones
they had access to), and coming to the conclusion that that's how you
achieved variable tones/colours. Whether this is urban legend, I have no
idea.
[]
d) Weaving, in which the crossing points of the warp and woof can be
arranged to make images;

Does tend to be a raster image as we'd now understand it (especially of
done with a Jacquard loom, of course). I have seen ones where
higher-resolution is used for parts of the image (e. g. faces), though.

e) Tapestry and carpets, in which the dots are created by inserting or
applying bits of coloured thread;

As above.

f) CRT display, in which dots of phosphor constitute the image;

Though usually the dots (not always round) were finer resolution than
the image being displayed. (You could also - especially with
long-persistence phosphors - do true raster graphics with CRTs, though I
never saw a colour one [maintaining registration probably too
difficult].)

g) Etc (I'm sure I left something out ;-) )
Well, I suppose the various printing mechanisms, which (with the
exception of golfball/daisywheel for text only) are all variations on
the grid too.

The oldest examples of the method are images of hands created by
spraying paint (blowing it out of one's mouth, apparently) to create a
"shadow" of the hand. The earliest of these are thousands of years old.

Those are _not_ a grid, of course.

Have a good day,

U2.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells