Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PanoToolsNG] new jpeg alternative

Expand Messages
  • Ken Warner
    YAJA (Yet another jpeg alternative) How many does that make now 4? 5? 6?
    Message 1 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      YAJA (Yet another jpeg alternative)

      How many does that make now 4? 5? 6?

      Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net wrote:
      > http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018146-264.html
      >
      > Jeffrey Martin
      > tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
      >
      > www.360cities.net - The world's best panoramic photography
      > See us on the BBC
      > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8176497.stm
      > See us on WIRED www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/panoramic-photo-prague/
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
    • Ken Warner
      ...and when I opened the gallery pages, all the jpgs loaded almost instantly while the webp images loaded much more slowly. And the webp images are smaller.
      Message 2 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        ...and when I opened the gallery pages, all the jpgs
        loaded almost instantly while the webp images
        loaded much more slowly. And the webp images
        are smaller. Bad codec!

        Ken Warner wrote:
        > YAJA (Yet another jpeg alternative)
        >
        > How many does that make now 4? 5? 6?
        >
        > Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net wrote:
        >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018146-264.html
        >>
        >> Jeffrey Martin
        >> tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
        >>
        >> www.360cities.net - The world's best panoramic photography
        >> See us on the BBC
        >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8176497.stm
        >> See us on WIRED www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/panoramic-photo-prague/
        >>
        >>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >>
        >
      • Paulo Fernandes
        The WebP images are saved as png s, otherwise nobody could see them ;) Com os melhores comprimentos, Best Regards, Paulo Fernandes Multimédia Go Go Pixel -
        Message 3 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          The WebP images are saved as png's, otherwise nobody could see them ;)

          Com os melhores comprimentos,
          Best Regards,

          Paulo Fernandes
          Multim�dia



          Go Go Pixel - Design, Fotografia e Multim�dia
          Cal�ada do Lidador, 22, 1�Andar
          4480-690 Vila do Conde - Portugal
          Tel. +351 252 119 375 - Fax. +351 252 119 375


          On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > ...and when I opened the gallery pages, all the jpgs
          > loaded almost instantly while the webp images
          > loaded much more slowly. And the webp images
          > are smaller. Bad codec!
          >
          >
          > Ken Warner wrote:
          > > YAJA (Yet another jpeg alternative)
          > >
          > > How many does that make now 4? 5? 6?
          > >
          > > Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net wrote:
          > >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018146-264.html
          > >>
          > >> Jeffrey Martin
          > >> tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
          > >>
          > >> www.360cities.net - The world's best panoramic photography
          > >> See us on the BBC
          > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8176497.stm
          > >> See us on WIRED www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/panoramic-photo-prague/
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >>
          > >>
          > >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ken Warner
          I noticed that after I wrote my note.
          Message 4 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            I noticed that after I wrote my note.

            Paulo Fernandes wrote:
            > The WebP images are saved as png's, otherwise nobody could see them ;)
            >
            > Com os melhores comprimentos,
            > Best Regards,
            >
            > Paulo Fernandes
            > Multimédia
            >
            >
            >
            > Go Go Pixel - Design, Fotografia e Multimédia
            > Calçada do Lidador, 22, 1ºAndar
            > 4480-690 Vila do Conde - Portugal
            > Tel. +351 252 119 375 - Fax. +351 252 119 375
            >
            >
            > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:
            >
            >>
            >> ...and when I opened the gallery pages, all the jpgs
            >> loaded almost instantly while the webp images
            >> loaded much more slowly. And the webp images
            >> are smaller. Bad codec!
            >>
            >>
            >> Ken Warner wrote:
            >>> YAJA (Yet another jpeg alternative)
            >>>
            >>> How many does that make now 4? 5? 6?
            >>>
            >>> Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net wrote:
            >>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018146-264.html
            >>>>
            >>>> Jeffrey Martin
            >>>> tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
            >>>>
            >>>> www.360cities.net - The world's best panoramic photography
            >>>> See us on the BBC
            >>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8176497.stm
            >>>> See us on WIRED www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/panoramic-photo-prague/
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
          • Roger Howard
            This is an absurd, pointless move. Besides marginal compression efficiency improvements (and for low-resolution stills, even 30% is marginal - we re not
            Message 5 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              This is an absurd, pointless move. Besides marginal compression
              efficiency improvements (and for low-resolution stills, even 30% is
              marginal - we're not exactly starved for bandwidth and struggling to
              load JPEGs these days are we?), this new format offers nothing but
              confusion. A poorly defined metadata strategy; likewise for color
              management. No new features - hell, not even alpha channel support. No
              16 bit or greater bit depths. Based on a container format with
              basically no track record in still imaging. A fucking limit of
              16383x16383 in the year 2010 (no doubt extensible later, but why the
              hell would anyone conceive of an image format with such a modest pixel
              dimension limit).EXCLUSIVELY 4:2:0 YUV color space. WTF.

              Wow, this has put me in a bad mood. Google knows fuckall about the
              needs of the imaging world.

              If we must have a replacement for standard JPEG, Microsoft's (yes,
              Microsoft) JPEG EXR is a fantastic format, well thought out and
              forward thinking. WebP is a rehash of 1990's file formats, with
              marginally better compression - the *least* interesting thing in a new
              digital image file format.
            • Mark D. Fink
              There. Feel better? :o) Mark www.northernlight.net www.virtual-travels.com www.pinnacle-vr.com
              Message 6 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                There. Feel better? :o)

                Mark

                www.northernlight.net
                www.virtual-travels.com
                www.pinnacle-vr.com

                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                > Behalf Of Roger Howard
                > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 1:40 PM
                > To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] new jpeg alternative
                >
                > This is an absurd, pointless move. Besides marginal compression
                > efficiency improvements (and for low-resolution stills, even 30% is
                > marginal - we're not exactly starved for bandwidth and struggling to
                > load JPEGs these days are we?), this new format offers nothing but
                > confusion. A poorly defined metadata strategy; likewise for color
                > management. No new features - hell, not even alpha channel support. No
                > 16 bit or greater bit depths. Based on a container format with
                > basically no track record in still imaging. A fucking limit of
                > 16383x16383 in the year 2010 (no doubt extensible later, but why the
                > hell would anyone conceive of an image format with such a modest pixel
                > dimension limit).EXCLUSIVELY 4:2:0 YUV color space. WTF.
                >
                > Wow, this has put me in a bad mood. Google knows fuckall about the
                > needs of the imaging world.
                >
                > If we must have a replacement for standard JPEG, Microsoft's (yes,
                > Microsoft) JPEG EXR is a fantastic format, well thought out and
                > forward thinking. WebP is a rehash of 1990's file formats, with
                > marginally better compression - the *least* interesting thing in a new
                > digital image file format.
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > --
                >
                >
                >
              • Trausti Hraunfjord
                ... could end up being only 1mb. That would be a huge improvement. Is this the FINAL MAXIMUM POSSIBLE compression and quality achievable with this not yet
                Message 7 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  :) 75% and more cut in size can be achieved on some images. 4mb image
                  could end up being only 1mb. That would be a huge improvement.

                  Is this the "FINAL MAXIMUM POSSIBLE" compression and quality achievable with
                  this not yet available format?

                  Or is this just the beginning of the format that might be improved upon
                  later on?

                  Kind of like buying the best available consumer computer of today, and
                  expecting it to be the best of the best... for many years to come... ?

                  Of course it is not perfect, but it is a good alternative, and I am sure
                  that once it is out and about, it will evolve and become better. I wish we
                  were already there, where it was perfect, and were everything else in the
                  digital and physical world was perfect... but I suspect we will have to wait
                  a little for that to become the reality.

                  Trausti


                  On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Roger Howard <rogerhoward@...> wrote:

                  > WTF.
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Bjørn K Nilssen
                  På Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:33:43 +0200, skrev Trausti Hraunfjord ... It will always take many years before a new format will be fully integrated. Look at how many
                  Message 8 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    På Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:33:43 +0200, skrev Trausti Hraunfjord
                    <trausti.hraunfjord@...>:

                    > :) 75% and more cut in size can be achieved on some images. 4mb image
                    > could end up being only 1mb. That would be a huge improvement.
                    >
                    > Is this the "FINAL MAXIMUM POSSIBLE" compression and quality achievable
                    > with
                    > this not yet available format?
                    >
                    > Or is this just the beginning of the format that might be improved upon
                    > later on?
                    >
                    > Kind of like buying the best available consumer computer of today, and
                    > expecting it to be the best of the best... for many years to come... ?
                    >
                    > Of course it is not perfect, but it is a good alternative, and I am sure
                    > that once it is out and about, it will evolve and become better. I wish
                    > we
                    > were already there, where it was perfect, and were everything else in the
                    > digital and physical world was perfect... but I suspect we will have to
                    > wait
                    > a little for that to become the reality.

                    It will always take many years before a new format will be fully
                    integrated. Look at how many years it took for png to be supported
                    everywhere.
                    IMO it's a good initiative, and at this time it's probably quite easy to
                    make changes, like upping the size limit, bit depth options etc?

                    Lucky it wasn't Steve Jobs and Apple that "invented" this new format!
                    Then Apple would probably have stopped supporting jpg within a few months
                    ;)

                    --
                    Bjørn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - 3D and panoramas.
                  • Roger Howard
                    ... No, I disagree. Making these sorts of changes are little easier than rolling out a brand new format. Look at BigTIFF support, which is arguably *easier* to
                    Message 9 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:

                      > På Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:33:43 +0200, skrev Trausti Hraunfjord
                      > <trausti.hraunfjord@...>:
                      >
                      >> :) 75% and more cut in size can be achieved on some images. 4mb image
                      >> could end up being only 1mb. That would be a huge improvement.
                      >>
                      >> Is this the "FINAL MAXIMUM POSSIBLE" compression and quality achievable
                      >> with
                      >> this not yet available format?
                      >>
                      >> Or is this just the beginning of the format that might be improved upon
                      >> later on?
                      >>
                      >> Kind of like buying the best available consumer computer of today, and
                      >> expecting it to be the best of the best... for many years to come... ?
                      >>
                      >> Of course it is not perfect, but it is a good alternative, and I am sure
                      >> that once it is out and about, it will evolve and become better. I wish
                      >> we
                      >> were already there, where it was perfect, and were everything else in the
                      >> digital and physical world was perfect... but I suspect we will have to
                      >> wait
                      >> a little for that to become the reality.
                      >
                      > It will always take many years before a new format will be fully
                      > integrated. Look at how many years it took for png to be supported
                      > everywhere.
                      > IMO it's a good initiative, and at this time it's probably quite easy to
                      > make changes, like upping the size limit, bit depth options etc?

                      No, I disagree. Making these sorts of changes are little easier than rolling out a brand new format. Look at BigTIFF support, which is arguably *easier* to roll out as TIFF doesn't affect nearly as many users as, say, one of the default browser image formats.

                      Anyone designing an image file format in 2010 which uses a 14 bit value for the maximum number of pixels on either dimension of an image, which supports only 4:2:0 YUV color space, which has no coherent embedded metadata strategy, which has no color management strategy, which doesn't support *the most common* requests of Web image formats - 8 bit (minimum) alpha channels, 16bit or higher depth per channel, and both lossy and lossless compression modes, has no clue what the market wants or needs.

                      Somewhat better image compression has *never* been enough to sell a new format into a rapid, fickle market like the Web. Look at JPEG 2000. When was the last time you said "Jeez, this Web site would be so much better if the still images were 30% smaller". I'm sorry, that's not compelling. Yet color management; high bit depths; a single format with great lossy AND lossless compression modes (which also happen to provide comparable efficiency gains to WebP in similar modes, and likely much better in many instances); and useful alpha channel support - those are features I would welcome intensely. Your mileage/needs may vary, of course.

                      Google will implement in Chrome, because they can. Some people will experiment with it, and rapidly dismiss it for lack of support in other products, and other browsers will not bother because it does not solve a pressing problem. This format will fail. You can file this note in your claim chowder bucket - if this format takes off and sticks for the long term (I think that will be self-evident, but if you'd like we can define what that means) I'll make t-shirts for everyone that has contributed to this thread (Jeffrey Martin, Joost, Paulo, Sacha, Trausti, Bjørn, and Ken) so far with my face on it and a big fat "I was stupidly wrong about WebP in 2010" bubble coming out of my mouth. Hold me to it. :)

                      As much as I'm a skeptic of all things Microsoft, if any format deserves broad take up it is JPEG XR.

                      -R
                    • Keith Martin
                      ... A good point. Then all we ll need is a way to read the Flash content on Flash-less systems... ;-) k
                      Message 10 of 25 , Oct 2, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sometime around 1/10/10 (at 11:10 -0500) Trausti Hraunfjord said:

                        >What I suspect, is that once Flash has been equipped with a WebP
                        >decoder, flash panoramas will be able to display panos using the WebP
                        >format, regardless of browsers being compatible with the WebP format or not.

                        A good point. Then all we'll need is a way to read the Flash content
                        on Flash-less systems... ;-)

                        k
                      • Trausti Hraunfjord
                        That can be done already... install Parallels , then run Win7 on the iDevice through parallels, and there is completely legal access to anything Flash.
                        Message 11 of 25 , Oct 2, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          That can be done already... install "Parallels", then run Win7 on the
                          iDevice through parallels, and there is completely legal access to anything
                          Flash.
                          Parallels costs around 70 dollars I think... and it is said that things do
                          work (well) with this workaround.

                          Trausti

                          On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:

                          > A good point. Then all we'll need is a way to read the Flash content
                          > on Flash-less systems... ;-)
                          >
                          > k
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Keith Martin
                          ... Okay, you re officially not allowed to touch my iPad! :-) k
                          Message 12 of 25 , Oct 2, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >run Win7 on the iDevice through parallels

                            Okay, you're officially not allowed to touch my iPad! :-)

                            k
                          • fierodeval
                            Trausti, The iPad has a 1GHz processor, and 256MB of RAM... regards! fiero
                            Message 13 of 25 , Oct 3, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Trausti,

                              The iPad has a 1GHz processor, and 256MB of RAM...

                              regards!
                              fiero




                              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > That can be done already... install "Parallels", then run Win7 on the
                              > iDevice through parallels, and there is completely legal access to anything
                              > Flash.
                              > Parallels costs around 70 dollars I think... and it is said that things do
                              > work (well) with this workaround.
                              >
                              > Trausti
                              >
                              > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > A good point. Then all we'll need is a way to read the Flash content
                              > > on Flash-less systems... ;-)
                              > >
                              > > k
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • Hans
                              ... Well I do not think that has much influence on this. It s a just a remote desktop access to you home computer. But I doubt that you can actually show any
                              Message 14 of 25 , Oct 3, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "fierodeval" <fierodeval@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Trausti,
                                >
                                > The iPad has a 1GHz processor, and 256MB of RAM...
                                >

                                Well I do not think that has much influence on this.

                                It's a just a remote desktop access to you home computer.
                                But I doubt that you can actually show any type of panoramas this way.

                                Remote desktops does not work that good even on a fast computer.

                                Hans


                                >
                                >
                                > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > That can be done already... install "Parallels", then run Win7 on the
                                > > iDevice through parallels, and there is completely legal access to anything
                                > > Flash.
                                > > Parallels costs around 70 dollars I think... and it is said that things do
                                > > work (well) with this workaround.
                                > >
                                > > Trausti
                                > >
                                > > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Keith Martin <keith@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > A good point. Then all we'll need is a way to read the Flash content
                                > > > on Flash-less systems... ;-)
                                > > >
                                > > > k
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                >
                              • Michael Crane
                                ... ... Since apple downgraded my iPhone 3G for me I have difficulty getting anything to run convincingly over issh Mick [Non-text portions of this message
                                Message 15 of 25 , Oct 3, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ...

                                  On 3 Oct 2010, at 12:47, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:

                                  >
                                  > Remote desktops does not work that good even on a fast computer.
                                  >
                                  > Hans
                                  >
                                  >
                                  Since apple downgraded my iPhone 3G for me I have difficulty getting anything to run convincingly over issh
                                  Mick

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • tom_a_sparks
                                  ... your main issue is bandwidth of the network connection and the protocol (image-based (remote framebuffer) or X Window System-like) tom
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Oct 3, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "fierodeval" <fierodeval@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Trausti,
                                    > >
                                    > > The iPad has a 1GHz processor, and 256MB of RAM...
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Well I do not think that has much influence on this.
                                    >
                                    > It's a just a remote desktop access to you home computer.
                                    > But I doubt that you can actually show any type of panoramas this way.
                                    >
                                    > Remote desktops does not work that good even on a fast computer.

                                    your main issue is bandwidth of the network connection and the protocol (image-based (remote framebuffer) or X Window System-like)

                                    tom
                                  • Keith Martin
                                    ... True. I used LogMeIn on my iPad to connect to my home Mac in order to stitch a panorama using PTGui. So by Trausti s hyper-positive logic PTGui runs on my
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Oct 3, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > > Remote desktops does not work that good even on a fast computer.

                                      >your main issue is bandwidth of the network connection and the
                                      >protocol (image-based (remote framebuffer) or X Window System-like)

                                      True. I used LogMeIn on my iPad to connect to my home Mac in order to
                                      stitch a panorama using PTGui. So by Trausti's hyper-positive logic
                                      PTGui runs on my iPad. :-)

                                      (The process wasn't exactly smooth - but then, I was in a field at a
                                      festival, connecting over 3G. It worked, but it isn't something I'd
                                      do other than as a technical exercise or in extreme emergencies.)

                                      k
                                    • prague
                                      Hi Roger, ... Currently yes we require full spherical (hole in nadir is ok) once you figure in stuff like google earth and iphone it becomes more complex to
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Oct 11, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi Roger,

                                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...>
                                        > Jeffrey, I read that your site is limited to spherical panoramas, and they
                                        > must be
                                        > equirectangular images with the aspect ratio of 2:1.
                                        >
                                        > Does this mean you completely rule out cylindrical panoramas? I can recast
                                        > them
                                        > as spherical, but of course this means leaving black bands above and below
                                        > the
                                        > image. With sites that support limitations on the angle of view, the viewer
                                        > doesn't have to see these black/blank areas. Can your site do something
                                        > equivalent? Or is this too much trouble?
                                        >
                                        > I ask, because many of my early panoramas, and even some recent ones, are
                                        > cylindrical, not spherical.


                                        Currently yes we require full spherical (hole in nadir is ok) once you figure in stuff like google earth and iphone it becomes more complex to suppport non-sphericals.

                                        Anyway, this might change in the future. if it does i'll let you know.

                                        jeffrey
                                      • Roger D. Williams
                                        Thanks, Jeffrey. Very clear! Roger W. ... -- Business: www.adex-japan.com Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Oct 12, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Thanks, Jeffrey. Very clear!

                                          Roger W.

                                          On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:18:29 +0900, prague <360cities@...> wrote:

                                          >
                                          > Hi Roger,
                                          >
                                          > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...>
                                          >> Jeffrey, I read that your site is limited to spherical panoramas, and
                                          >> they
                                          >> must be
                                          >> equirectangular images with the aspect ratio of 2:1.
                                          >>
                                          >> Does this mean you completely rule out cylindrical panoramas? I can
                                          >> recast
                                          >> them
                                          >> as spherical, but of course this means leaving black bands above and
                                          >> below
                                          >> the
                                          >> image. With sites that support limitations on the angle of view, the
                                          >> viewer
                                          >> doesn't have to see these black/blank areas. Can your site do something
                                          >> equivalent? Or is this too much trouble?
                                          >>
                                          >> I ask, because many of my early panoramas, and even some recent ones,
                                          >> are
                                          >> cylindrical, not spherical.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Currently yes we require full spherical (hole in nadir is ok) once you
                                          > figure in stuff like google earth and iphone it becomes more complex to
                                          > suppport non-sphericals.
                                          >
                                          > Anyway, this might change in the future. if it does i'll let you know.
                                          >
                                          > jeffrey
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ------------------------------------
                                          >


                                          --
                                          Business: www.adex-japan.com
                                          Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.