Live data from Hacker News

"I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting style"

jwz.livejournal.com

21–30 of 91 posts

Re: "I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting style"

#21
post #5
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps some people care more about what would be convenient to them than whatever laziness or lock-in Adobe intended. Or maybe they believe that Photoshop might have better interchange with future versions of itself if its file format was sane.

What decade was Photoshop first written in and how long did it take to open a file?

Exactly. I clearly remember working on a 20MB PSD file in the mid 1990s (a restoration job done on a borrowed Mac of a badly damaged photo of my grandfather; the picture still sits on my mother's dressing table.) That took an absolute age to load and I know there wasn't much more RAM than that in the machine. It worked well enough though.

Old formats like PSD are better viewed as archaeological artefacts than as exemplars of some elegant ideal.

Re: "I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting style"

#22
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you have a description of the ".mov tree of structs format"

Simple version (in pseudo-C): struct Atom { uint32 length; uchar type[4]; uchar data[length - 8]; }; The file is a single atom that has other atoms (and random parameters and such) in its data field. You end up with a big tree of atoms which can be parsed as needed. Super simple format -- like the parent, I use atom trees all the time for serialization.

Is it not strange to call it an Atom? Atom is etymologically indivisible, when here we can have arbitrary structure.

Re: "I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting style"

#23
post #22
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple version (in pseudo-C): struct Atom { uint32 length; uchar type[4]; uchar data[length - 8]; }; The file is a single atom that has other atoms (and random parameters and such) in its data field. You end up with a big tree of atoms which can be parsed as needed. Super simple format -- like the parent, I use atom trees all the time for serialization.

Is it not strange to call it an Atom? Atom is etymologically indivisible, when here we can have arbitrary structure.

Yeah, it is -- I've never found it to be a particularly great term, but it's what's used.
Post reply on HN